19991173 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19991027

HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION
PROGRAM INC.---
March 1, 2000
Leonard S. Rindner
Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner
3714 Spokeshave Ln.
Matthews, NC 28105
JAMES F. MATTHEWS, Ph.D.
T. LAWRENCE MELLICHAMP, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 655
Newell, NC 28126
[phone]
[phone]
fax: [phone]
72000
RE: Aquatic Monitoring for the Cato Property Stream Restoration Project
Dear Len:
Please find below a proposed monitoring protocol for the stream relocation project on the Cato Property.
This protocol was developed from direct input from Dave Penrose, aquatic habitat specialist for NCDWQ.
In general, this protocol is a multi-year program with two sampling periods for each year covered under
the program. The program will start March 2000 and extend until the Fall of 2005. A qualified
biological sampling consultant will need to be contacted to perform this program.
Sampling should occur over a five-year time period and two sampling events per year will be needed; once
in the Spring (March-April) and once in the Fall (September-October). One downstream sampling
location will be located in the pasture section, toward Flat Branch; one upstream sampling location will be
located in the forest, just south of I-485; and one reference sampling location will be located in the stream
behind the old residence off of Providence Rd. This last sampling location should be sampled this month
(March) to obtain reference data prior to clearing. After construction begins, only the two lower sampling
locations will need to be visited.
Data collected during these events should minimally include macroinvertebrate collection and
identification as well as fish/amphibian collection and identification. Additionally, some basic water
quality measurements should be taken including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity.
Representative photos, along with a map showing existing conditions and sampling locations should be
included as part of the protocol. A report will need to be forwarded to the appropriate regulatory agency
(ies) on an annual basis, unless otherwise requested.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist on this project and if you have any questions or you require any
changes to this protocol, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Chris Matthews
Cc: u
Habitat Analysis, Endangered Plant Studies, Restoration of Habitats, Wetland Mitigation, Monitoring
Cato (Childress-Klein) and Princeville Field Trips
Subject: Cato (Childress-Klein) and Princeville Field Trips
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:07:21 -0800
From: Dave <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, "Todd St.John" <[e-mail]>
some of my comments from both of these trips FYI stuff.
Childress Klein: odd and I visited this site with Len Ridner, Randy Forsyth and Chris Matthews. This
restorat n ject appeared to have lots of potential as a demonstration project for benthos monitoring and
given a monitoring plan to Len to do so. The lower reaches of the UT to Flat Branch is blasted:
pasture tivities and enrichment. The benthos at this site appear to be mostly "ditch fauna". The water
quality a d habitat improve upstream, less pasture immediately above the restoration site and forest above
Highwa} 485. The most upstream location we looked at was apparently strongly influenced by
groundw, ter and had a fairly diverse benthic fauna. Very interesting. I'd like to see us proceed with this.
Princevi le. I spent Thursday with some NRCS folks touring the Princeville area. As you know this area
was dev stated by hurricane Floyd. It's easy to see why this area flooded with the construction of the
dikes, fl, od gates and ditches all contributing to the problem. What NRCS would like to do is reestablish
the flo in the ditch system that already exits in the town. The problem is that the system has not been
mainta' ed at all and in some cases houses have been build on filled in ditches. It's a mess. There are
wetlan s that they would like to drain and they're talking about constructing new ditches. I have a map of
the dr nage patterns for the town and some notes from the tour. At this point I'm not sure how to proceed
and it ay be that we'll have to wait to see what happens with the Presidential Committee. I tried to fill
them ' on what little I know about the Tar-Pam rules. I'm sure there will be other meetings.
JD. I ve note heard from Cherri about the meeting on Monday with the Stone Mountain folks, so I guess I
will n t attend.

1 of 1 3/9/00 7:14 AM
Flat Branch Crk comments
Subject: Flat Branch Crk comments
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:26:00 -0500
From: Jeff Jurek <jeff [e-mail]>
To: Dave Penrose <[e-mail]>
Dave, Have you been to this site? I am confused as to whether this is a
perennial or intermittant stream.
-Although their numbers seem to follow the regional curves, I am
uncomfortable with the "inner berm" as they call it. The regional
curves are based on perennial streams. If they have miscalled Bankfull,
their design will have problems.
-Hard to understand their fold-out plan view. To comment on structures,
need better map.
-Not many comments here; just question of intermittant vs. perennial and
bankfull call.
I of 1 03/02/2000 6:22 PM
March 1, 2000
Leonard S. Rindner
Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner
3714 Spokeshave Ln.
Matthews, NC 28105
RE: Aquatic Monitoring for the Cato Property Stream Restoration Project
Dear Len:
Please find below a proposed monitoring protocol for the stream relocation project on the Cato Property.
U
This protocol was developed from direct input from Dave Penrose, aquatic habitat specialist for NCDWQ.
In general, this protocol is a multi-year program with two sampling periods for each year covered under the
program. The program will start March 2000 and extend until the Fall of 2005. A qualified biological
sampling consultant will need to be contacted to perform this program. b
Sampling should occur over a five-year time period and two sampling events per year will be needed; once
v
in the Spring (March-April) and once in the Fall (September-October). One sampling location will be
located in the pasture section, toward Flat Branch; one sampling location will be located in the forest, just "
south of I-485; and one reference sampling location will be located in the stream behind the old residence
off of Providence Rd. This last sampling location will be sampled this month (March) to obtain reference
data prior to clearing. After construction begins, only the two lower sampling locations will be visited.
Data collected during these events will include: macroinvertebrate collection and identification as well as
fish/amphibian collection and identification. Additionally, some basic water quality measurements will be
taken including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity. Representative photos, along with a
map showing existing conditions and sampling locations should be included as part of the protocol. A
report should be forwarded to the appropriate regulatory agency (ies) on an annual basis, unless otherwise
requested.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist on this project and if you have any questions or you require any
changes to this protocol, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Chris Matthews
Cc: Dave Penrose - NCDWQ
HA61TAT
As-sESSMENT AND
Ri sToRATION
PR' O' GRAM INC.-? ?
Febrmy l $; 2W
Leonard S. Rindner
Landscape.A4rchitW and Environmental flier
3714 Spokeshave Ln.
Matthews, NC '2$ tt)5
RR; Aquatic Survey for the Cato. Property Stream Restoration PrCllea
Dear Len:
We "amined the site located sotdh 1-495, off of Tom Short Rd., an:Frbnmy 17, 1000, Our pprpcii4:v *::
to dam ine the exte t Of a4404tie '0emmunities, fish and macrojayertebrate, located in , T i;: 4Ereiso? '
ptolsosed for "Oration.
The smuti stream,is located in an active hoots pasture and has lithe to no vegetative r0vex Go
The bed is sanipa of mostly salt; silt; sand and hwamocks of gresses. H&M 4=1'.v?alk
channel and o6.* love .beaks: -Several areas of the chwwel had fresh deposits of ha • aur;.•'••
fisp) ::'•
?sereami dee??s sliotly•as it flows into. Flat ids. Only one plow of.r;mcky substrate (u: pica of!"
W" located in the chaencl.
No" were.aolieqted in the project•streem. 't'here is very little habitat imilable for fish outside af'4.' 4W, .
8, all pools. 'Vl?'e also searched for.:tmc ro nvwt?ates• and. vie unsucemfut. There i c little avai?It)i? ,
hitr9:tat for mv,?rcriavertebrates•besid"#he: vegaWion chimps In the channel. It is pwstiblo that•the:g om ..
tacstad
might support niambers of the Clda hats •gtottp (Dfgcmflim and ITatuselflies),- however, AMC VAft
too
s?t the time of sarnpliq, Siltation and imphco. from horse lmffic arc prpbably Fred
PWm4n0nt om munity of fish, or macroimverrtebratea to form.
pu have ony questions please WI
Thank you for the appormity to asow. on• this project attd ifv
Sincerely,
CMatthews;
Habitat Analysis; Endangered Plant Studies, Restoration O'Habitats, Wetland: Mitigation, Monitoring

February 14, 2000
' Randall D. Forsjithe
A?Geologic Consultant .
ii MARE'
F
;

c- h
i

11
Table of Contents
Site Description p:3
Mitigation Summary p.3
Stream Impairment Assessment p.3
Reference Reach Assessment p.7
Restoration Plan P.10
Objectives P.10
Channel Mo rphology Restoration p.13
Suffer p.13
Monito ring P.14
Figures: P.15
Figure 1. Mitigation Site Location and Watershed P.15
Figure 2a. Station Location Map for Reference Reach p.16
Figure 2b. Station Location Map for Impaired Reach p.17
Figure 2c. Profiles of Existing Channel Conditions P.18
Figure 3. Meander Characteristics Ref. Reach #1. P.19
Figure 4. Riffle and Pool Observations p.20
Figure 5. Generalized Flow Restoration model p.21
Figure 6. Restoration Profiles p.22
Figure 7. Restoration Planform Map p.23
Tables:
Table 1. rRosgen-type Morphologic Parameters for p.24
Reference Reach
Photos: p.25
Plate 1. Impaired Reach p.26
Plate 2. Reference Reach # 1 p.27
Plate 3. Reference Reach # 2 p.28
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.2
4

'
Site Description
' This project proposes a ion a site off of Tom
Short Road in Charlotte, N.C. tS , u ia?ey 1Q0 lter fie?u•
1 n cYtizYl 4istrbutecl?a`n.a?.?=order stream reah.. The stream is
impaired from an number of vantage points and is proposed. re for
restoration. The impaired reach is the head water creek to „'±Pch, the
' latter draining to of the Catawba River The impaired reach is
shown on Figure 1 along with two areas on the creek up and down stream which
ti
diti
f
th
t
f
d d
fi
ora
on.
erence con
ons
or
e res
ne re
e
were used to gather an
The impaired reach collects runoff from approximately 195 acres of urbanized
' land, including commercial, residential, and major transportation corridors.

Mitigation Summary
In January and February of 2000 an assessment of the impaired reach
was performed to assess the current stream conditions and develop
appropriate strategies for possible restoration.
raaecs?kFr?.1Qysl£??xliear
4 faebt-9dbam X ' at> r `h) . There are several impairment
factors. These include: a) channelization (i.e. straightening of the
stream), b) lowered interstorm flow conditions, c) loss of pool area, d)
loss of wooded riparian habitat, e)ii°dtzr3tas
]?ysesr?g<in C•reek??ksedt In this mitigation/restoration plan the
causes of impairment are first discussed, then data for the reference
reaches, and lastly the mitigation/restoration plan.
Stream Impairment Assessment
Figure 1, 2a and 2b (in appended materials) show the course of the
reach of Flat Branch which is being proposed for restoration. Also in
Plate 1 there are three photographs of field conditions. Figure 2a and
2b come from a detailed topographic survey done of the property for the
purposes of this restoration. The segment of the USGS 1:24,000
Weddington topographic sheet containing this tributary is also shown in
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.3

1

1

i

figure 1. In addition to these sources of information, historical
series of aerial photographs have been reviewed dating back to 1938.
Also, field channel, bed characteristics, vegetation character, and
ground water table conditions were investigated in November, December of
1999 and January and February of 2000. These data are categorically
summarized below.
Evidence for Channelization The reach is two short in length to
have a clear `channelized' appearance on the 1:24,000 topographic sheet.
Aerial photography dating back to 1935 however show this channel in an
open field or agricultural setting with m. 1/4 of the
channel is slightly arc-shaped along the down-slope end of a small pond
(figure 2b). Here the linear trend of the channel across the open
pasture has been slightly diverted by the earthen dam for the pond.
Inspection of aerial photograph shows that the Six Mile Creek watershed
has many creeks which have not been diverted in wooded land settings,
and these consistently show a low, but greater, sinuosity than that seen
here. Having said that, we need to acknowledge that channelization
would have had to occur before 1938.
Field studies on the reference reaches above and below this
section support the argument of past channelization of this central
portion. Both above and below this linear stretch (essentially a
sinuosity of 1.0) the creek has sinuosities of 1.1 to 1.2. Also riffle
and pool data indicate that the central section is dominated by riffles,
which is generally the impact of channelization on stream beds of this
nature since channelization favors grade steepening. Finally, field
assessment show that the central portion has no exposures of bedrock,
again consistent with past channelization.
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.4

' Flow Conditions The impaired reach of this stream is shown on the
USGS sheet as an MMMIAMIMMOMM The map was however created after
the channelization of this stream before 1938. It is thus not clear
what the be channelization flow was like. However, both, above and
below this reach, the stream had significant interstorm flow in late
A
October, November, December, January and February. MITAK-129".? ?00101 1 k.
' 15*L3te-ree r. In _.,
' January, and February precipitation has been persistent, and flow has
been noted on all site visits. It is not clear that this reach is truly
intermittent, given this winter's precipitation pattern. ______ __ ...s
I also see little evidence of baseflow along the reach. In
December a series of holes were augered to determine the position of the
water table under the channelized portion of the stream. Four holes
were dug at locations shown in Figure 4. Ground water while
contributing to flow both above and below the channelized reach, is
found approximately 2 feet below the stream bed. The cause of this
condition is a matter of some conjecture. It must be noted, however,
that the channel cross section is 2 to 4 feet less incised in this
' section. If one were to have a profile consistent with either the up or
down stream reach, the bed would intercept the water table. This could
indicate that channelization was also accompanied by leveling of the
channel bed to facilitate farming activities. P del
' ? ??'??????c? ?,n???y,%?.:f?ipa:?'i?'?..?t?.aet?`s??a.?a}?? ?l€a5c3s?•,
ylk!p' a Fier f? zta!T r ?t???<< xl elYk h?#. One must assume
'
that long term pasture use of this area would have kept the profile
' trodden, essentially preventing renewed incision to the water table.
One could also entertain the possibility that the upper and lower
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.5

E
reaches have continued to incise the channel while the pasture was
maintained in a more smooth profile over the years. However, trees of 2-
3' in diameter can be found rooted into the banks of the reach above the
impaired reach which would easily be 50 to 70 years in age. Thus the
most likely cause of this reach being dry is an artificially maintained
profile found conducive to agricultural landuse.
. Channel bank and bed conditions. The typical cross section for
the impaired reach is shown in profile #3 of figure 6. The bed
characteristics are shown in figure 4.. While the banks along this reach
' are `stable', grasses dominate the vegetation, and may be a function of
agricultural land management. The bed is dominated by riffles, which

are essentially continuos along its entire length down to the one
culvert crossing below the pond. The dominance of riffles is a direct
consequence of channelization effects on velocity of water flow.
Variable velocity structure in bends of streams create pooling areas
which are absent in this straightened reach. Also channelization
generally increases flow promoting stream degradation which also favors
riffle bed structure. The latter may not be as important in this case
due to the lack of evidence for incision in this reach
-?-=R parian Characteristics The impaired reach has nothing but
sture within 50' of both sides of the channel center line.
Summary of Stream Impairment Between the woos tit=i`fers the

creek upstream from the pasture, to the brush/woody fringe that buffer
the bedrock-based reach below the pasture,
hr-etire1?1?00-?eta'bf
c ian ?7 t a? i "r' *''? ?S r a} rata ? a3 ti In addition to
this loss of habitat, the open pasture setting of the stream promotes
direct grazing of live stock in the stream bed. 1Rwav ted
"aAs?tii'ta. The elevation of this reach 2
feet above the water table is likely an artifact of the channelization
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.6

' and pasture setting, and this has likely contributed to diminished
stream flow.
s. rrttd '°„
lanuse
??e.°nEht few. years , .,.orae can, anticipate that; this ,reach 'will undergo'
;;M' -al impairment-as 'incision ''is - renewed 'without °eleep r460tesl barfk

' Summary of Stream Restoration Goals
The goals of a stream restoration are to reverse or compensate for
the causes and effects of stream impairment. The assessment indicates
impairments include: stream flow, stream structure, and stream aquatic
' and riparian habitat.
?"?d£c1zIeia s
5;5a.aazid -managem nt ?practs . However, landuse changes expected in
' the near future which would transform landuse to urban categories, can
be expected to have some additional effects which need to be anticipated
' in the desi
n of an effective restoration
lan
The
rimar
concern
g
.
p
p
y
with urbanization is the additional storm flow that may be produced by

the increase in impervious cover in the 200 acres of watershed draining
4
through this reach. Also, we must be concerned with water quality,
which can be safe guarded to some extent fibvr.,,ueet e €
?d a
' The objectives of the plan are thus to: restore channel form, bed
and aquatic habitat; augment interstorm flow, accommodate anticipated

landuse induced changes in the water budget and flow regime, and restore
Vy
a riparian wooded conservation buffer to act as a water,quality safe
guard and habitat area.
' Reference Reach Assessment
In January and February of 2000 data was collected on approximately
500 linear feet of stream above and below the impaired reach to better
' characterize morphologic and hydrologic attributes of the watershed and
creek under more natural hydrologic and landuse conditions. The primary
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.7

' data needed to assist in the design of a restoration plan are channel
morphologic parameters, bed characteristics and bank conditions. The
' observations on these characteristics are presented in Table 1, in figures
2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4 and 6, and in the photographs presented in plated 2 and 3.
' Brief summaries of these findings along with some other observations and
interpretations are discussed below.
'. Reference Reach Planform A detailed survey of the creek center line
was performed using 20, spacings. This allowed the meander characteristics
of the stream to be calculated from the survey maps. The results of the
' survey are shown in the attached figures (e.g. 2a,2b, and 3). The section
below the impaired creek showed the best definition of creek meanders, and
' the calculations for the sinuosity and meander wavelength are shown in
figure 3. This section has a sinuosity of 1.1 (approximate a 10% increase
' in channel length over valley length)
and an avera
e meander wavelen
th of
,
g
g
441. The impaired reach essentially has a sinuosity of 1. with no
'
significant bends. The reach above the pasture has a slightly lower

' sinuosity than the reach below the pasture, but also has a lower valley
grade. of the two reference reaches the map data for the creek planform
' detail was better in the lower reach, and this data is reported and used for
the restoration design.

"pe prgss upstream. In the lower reach the grade is

approximately .95%, in the pasture the grade is .81%, and in the reach above
the pasture it is close to .7%. Had the grade before channelization been
' consistent across the three areas, one would expect the grade of the
channelized section to be steeper than either the areas below or above. In
thi
it
th
t
l
d
f
i
t
b
d
k
s
appears
s case
a
a
ge o
e
res
s
ant
e
roc
expo
ed below the
' pasture has kept the creek from headward degradation, and caused the stream
areas above this reach to have aleme&, the latter akin to
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.8

i

sealevel, causing the lowering of the grade of the stream. Under natural
conditions (i.e. without channelization) we would have expected the lower
grade of .7% to have continued across the pasture up to the start of the
bedrock exposures. plan'- 6w,° we `a e p C tr kY Wthe
mapper chann?grade, not ,the grade,.An•- the reach below 'the' stream. 'Phis-
r?equzres,.a? sin uosity of app_ro3timately which is slightly higher, than
see
n in the reach below the pasture,. It is<however ?4mon fhat sinuosity
i a eases as. one, ;approaches ya,;rl aseleveI.
Channel Profile and Flow Regime The reach above the pasture has a
more nature riparian character, and was chosen for collection of cross
section or profile data. one profile for an inflection point, and one
profile for a meander bend were taken out to 50' both sides of the creek.
These profiles are shown in figure 2c, along with a profile for the impaired
reach segment. The profiles also show the bankfull stage level. As is
commonly the case for first order tributaries, the bankfull stage is
approximately 1/2 the height of the channel banks, giving a 2 x bankfull
stage near the edge of the bank. This means that the `floodprone, width can
be very different depending on the value chosen for the bankfull stage.
There are only two well developed inner berms in the reference reaches, and
both indicate a bankfull height of 220. This results in a bank full width
of 9 to 111, a flood prone width of 20 -29, a width to depth ratio of 9 to
11, and an average depth of 11".
Bank Conditions Bank conditions are largely stable throughout both
reference reach areas. This is likely in part reflects the low sinuosity of
the creek which has kept bank toe undercutting to a minimum. Bank area
steeper than 1:1 show some signs of moderate erosion by combined
undercutting and surface sloughing of material. Bank slopes more gradual
than 1:1 are covered by multiyear plant/moss communities. Bank heights vary
from 3 to 5 feet, but show systematic decline towards the pasture from
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.9

' upstream, and some increase down stream, as if current conditions have to
some extent been force to accommodate conditions in the impaired section.
' Channel Bed Characteristics The reach above the pasture provided a
better access for mapping and characterizing the channel bed. The base of
the channel in both the upper and lower reference reaches are 3 to 5 feet in
' width, with interstorm flow generally restricted to 2 to 3 feet of this
width. The upper reach has a riffle and pool structure largely defined by
t debris accumulations rather than meander bends. The lower reach which was
not mapped in detail, has numerous bedrock nickpoints which define small
' cascade, riffle, and pool characteristics. The upper reach had no bed rock
nickpoints over the 300' used for characterization. The data for the riffle
' and pools for the upper reference reach are shown in figure 4. This data
shows that there are more pool areas than riffles, with a ratio of 2.29. The
' avera
e
ool s
acin
is 17 feet
It is
th
t th
i
i
g
p
p
g
.
common
a
e spac
ng
s
approximately 1/2 meander wavelength. However, due to low sinuosity it is
unlikely that these characteristics are defined by stream planform. The

' restoration plan will have to incorporate some in channel pool enhancement
structures to initially play the role formed by woody debris blockage. It is
' also possible that this riffle:pool character can change with passing storms
as this material is relocated in the channel. Below this reach, bed rock
' nickpoints are found on a spacing of 15 to 40, which would create a slightly
more permanent bed structure to the riffles and pools.

Restoration Plan
t
objectives
' As stated above the objectives of the plan are to: restore channel
form, bed and aquatic habitat; augment interstorm flow, accommodate
' anticipated landuse induced changes in the water budget and flow regime, and

Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.10
1

n
u

u

C

11
restore a riparian wooded conservation buffer to act as a water quality safe
guard and habitat area.
Table 1 outlines the basic channel morphologic parameters which are to
incorporated into the design. For reasons discussed above; it is not logical
to try to match conditions in the reference reach areas, vae?- e
lw l?bal= adstts? ad=o sie?Yree`? chfe'
PRveff
C+?`L'??Qa?:^"?i?.^??,t3.a????f,:,^??S_3-'rS.tcli?t:i!vb,?C?lC3C15.SS'?Cs pbS?L?'` ?39';•t'?1??s=?T`?T'd"'?`?1 =?2`??C'?Vl7r'??1?'«
im.rge r'aa-t4. Conditions listed for restoration represent estimates of
conditions which likely existed prior to channelization in this area. Thus
aspects such as bank heights, sinuosity, and stream grade vary from
conditions observed in the reference reaches, but in a rational manner
calculated or estimated to bring the stream.back to a nature setting.
The flow regime is more difficult to restore. It has been argued that
prior to channelization the reach likely was incised an additional 1 to 2
feet, resulting in 2 to 3' banks rather than the current 1 to 1.5' banks
seen today. This would have brought the base of the creek close to the
level of the current water table. Unfortunately, due to anticipated
urbanization in this watershed we can expect additional declines in the
regional, water table, as storm flow increases with impervious cover. TWWA-
"_ t?acUSS q,f groU
1 ar?aer re:;?isge. I MR,5V91 e total.'
??,?? 3'?e???te?u? •stream .?3;pw .,wr].1.,,,aax>eas?e • w:thrnr?Ft'?te :?xr?axig
'WW rsh6d. Trenching this stream down to the water table is not likely to
be a successful approach to solving the flow deficiency.
??be?end?eelopdu#c?YSspant the ?iecl'ixrim g 31w
?3L?rT7ar13'..iht-mri,.ff?kpanstot detetiz hol
??wFThese
ti
structures are shown in figure 7 (folded map insert). The structures are
designed for wooded habitat, but are dammed from the creek to keep on
average approximately 1/2 acre feet of water in storage. This water will
within a few hours sink to a sub-detention area interflow zone where it will
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.11

r

L

u

then laterally seem for 2 to 5 days across a semi-permeable levee into the
creek. The general hydrologic model for this design is shown in figure 5.
real' `also are c1es?3 Lo tu ..storm, ozerbariJ`stoage.<at a ::
agent i'a a.es below bankfull which wi'l'l held ?va>t7i stabilization ;Af
rhov de • ==adclit-%onal-storage to "accommodate incxe,4 storm f1pw iz? ;thy ,E
tersl?e?rom ; future..; urbanzz:ation..
The design calls for channel stabilization using either a small zone
of toe refusal rip rap, or a fiber coil staked to the bottom of the sides of
each bank. R9 tY? laya slnuo,a:tprap acid addi' ionalro?aC?n.a
a mtrol "" ri meander areas may riTot be mee6adi, Banks shown situated between
detention areas and the stream will be composed of a mix of rip rap with
loam, mixed to maintain grain.to grain support within the rip rap size
range, but with sufficient soil content for woody riparian vegetation. The
permeability of this mix needs to be calculated within a water budget model
analysis to produce interstorm flow contributions to the creek which will
yield reasonable extensions of interstorm flow. A reasonable goal would be
to maintain flow for 70% of the interstorm periods, as defined by a l inch
storm with a 1 week separation. Detention storage should be sufficient in
this design plan to yield approximately 30-35 gal/minute over a 3 to 5 day
period. This is augmentation to existing interflow. Prior to preparation of
the engineering plans this water budget analysis will have to be performed
to determine appropriate physical and hydraulic properties of the permeable
liner and levees for the detention areas. The excess fill from the
detention cells will be used to make low relief mounds and to construct the
low (11) levees and berms. It should be noted that these are very low
relief structures, which will not diminish habitat characteristics.
. ets fw ;ll cum M.1 gndi ,? a? ate } ? ie
r s,, However, it is not a performance goal, as thereare two many areas
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.12

' of uncertainty to accurately predict growing season water budgets in these
area.
1
Channel Morphology Restoration
' The channel meanders and profiles are shown in figures 7 and 6. The
restored length of the impaired reach is 1352' from is current 11001,
' producing a stream grade of .71% which approximates the grade in the upper
reference reach. The cross section has similar bankfull area (11 sq.ft.).
' The major difference is the channel above the im
aired r
h h
hi
h b
k
p
eac
as a
an
g
essentially two times the height of the bankfull stage. This high bank is
' t b
il
i
h
l
i
d
no
u
t
nto t
e new p
an
n or
er to better utilize the potential of the
' riparian areas for storm detention. This is not seen as a serious problem,
as currently the impaired reach in the pasture shows no signs of channel
' incision or erosion, and in actuality the channel banks are progressively
lower as one approaches the pasture reach from the upstream wooded reach.
' Within the last 100 feet, the bank heights are closer to 31. Thus the 2'
banks shown %in the restored reach should not pose a serious problem. There
'.. is some possibility that stream degradation could occur once the land
reverts to a wooded landcover.
b.
?i'a'l.;?aa,,,?;?,po?nts • are k?uilt in*_o'?.tha: plan}. '1??en•tial?ly??' ??:
VIW -.cock installed=_!'at-e' cle.iatiori° t© a "depth' sucpizn to'
' t bed ddgradatio .bela? e eleva`tion'. o _tlie next i'k oin°t.
' The plan calls for these every 2 to 3 feet of elevation drop along the
creek. Thus the depth of rock emplacement is 2 to 3 feet. The most that
' one would see for degradation is headward erosion to a developing plunge
pool below each nick point.
Suffer
' R t of „this r- storat?on plan, :a 50 `: conservation ,:buffer- is
?cerifxied alofig both sides._.of the_cxeek.. The only exception to this 50'
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.13
1

buffer is in the lower SW portions of the area on the.west bank. Here the
buffer is narrower in one small area to provide utility access. All buffer
areas are design to accommodate woody vegetation. The detention areas are
seen as supporting bottomland hardwoods.
y
._,g
Re
;S
Monitoring
The restoration work can be broken into phases: preliminary staging
and strategic planning, excavation, emplacement of new physical stream bed
and structures, habitat establishment, stream relocation, and post-
relocation extended monitoring. The monitoring will occur at various stages
in the planning, implementation, and post relocation phases of the work.
First, existing materials available for recycling (bed materials, biota)
will be assessed and the recycling of these materials will be integrated
into the implementation plan as deemed practical. Second, prior to
emplacement of the bed and bank structures the planform and cross section of
the relocated%channel will be verified for consistency with the plan
described herein. Third, after bioengineering and channel structures are
installed, monitoring will again verify consistency of the work with the
plan. Fr?gytall the resr?st:.vnJ,rtaeYV aTao?ArxwE S
lZbmWlemeahted on. ? curter y bass s f r....the .f rr. year to Bete m rat he
we < al'4i--";tag t.y of ,the ?eloca,tion Assuming the work is sustainable
without significant modification, monitoring (after 1 year of performance
without modification) will shift to a 6 month cycle.
? t t 3 a 7 ]<s ? f1 5 is of physical -and -eca; iO idAMP& &-tweam
.-oM'dims=. Monitoring reports will outline assessment information and report
any problems that need to be addressed. Redress of problems should be
completed within 6 to 12 months of formal notification. 1ca?o"`
A 4:
S-tabili Y, perfor ance_.Q n-channel and bank zstructures,,anq
ft, ly., tab =fished >e4 t_krw, and riparian: habitat.
p c5. ?
`? Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.14

Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.15

Pet
Figure 1. Upper First-Order Regime and Watershed of Flat Branch tributary,
which drains to Sixmile Creek, Catawba River Basin

l
ti 1
I

rProfile 1
CR- 6
Profile 2 • ? ? ?,?
•- f 4

1f C_1 9
C-1 8
C-1 7
f C- 15
I C- 14 1
C- 13
1C- 12 1

CR-4
CR- 3 CR- 5
CR- 2
CR-1 ?
W ?1-
l
1 P

1
0 60 ft
scale
I
Figure 2a. Map. showing station and profile locations
CR- 7

C_ _ C- 13
' C- 11

IC- 10 f
_ YC-
C- 7
C- 5
C- 4
/ h
ftC- 3
i
t /
C- 2
C- 1
C- 6
1i
n
1
t
i
(
t
of lie 3 \
531.06 \-"I-
I
fi
.rr 1
1
? ? ; rf o
i ? scale 60 ft
Figure 2b. Map showing locations of observation stations, and profile for impaired reach.

0
2
4
ft
6
8
10
Profile 1: # CR-5, Inflection Point
1<-20'->I
.
.. ... ?..... ......... .E.?.I ...... x Bankfull
ff Bankfull stnue=1'10'
.............. ,....,
11.22 S4.tt.,
0 20 40 60 80
Profile 2: CR-5, Meander bend (Inner Berm)
0
2
ft 4
6
8
10
100ft
2s0
............
.......... ....................... _ ............... 1......... ....... ..... .. .....
?2 xBankfull c'
:............ ....I .........
Bankfull stsg? =1'10"
..
....................... ......... ... .. ....... ..
..; ...... ... 11 .. .........
0
0
2
ft 4
6
10
20 40 60 80
Profile 3: #C-15, Impaired Reach
100ft
0 20 40 60 80
100 ft
Figure 2c. Profiles for Existing Stream Reach Conditions, Profile Locations
Shown in Figures 2a and 2b.

O 60 ft
-1
N
!
Valley Distance = 336 f t
channel Distance = 363 f t
19 ft
-I

ft

64.60 ft
!
Joe
?b
? 31.68 ft
?? s ft
r ?
37. ft
l °
Reference Reach #1,
Cato Property Channel Grade = .95%
Sinuosity = 1.1
Meander Wavelength = 44 ft
Figure 3. Sinuosity of creek below impaired reach

p v- a m

N
r

l

r

i
OE-0 i?

6 G -O tr
r
I
.Q L G-0
o ?E
p
i d

' F
r

% co
r

6-0

L-J O

Z

9-0 E

l
l

£-? C
)
O

O

® ®
m O N m a
Lu J
J
LL
LL a
Lr b ?
U
U
C
N
N
00
a
i

U
L'Y1
cc
a
E
0
0
N
C:
m n
Up C! O co CO N
et O L` 4 O Un CD O
CD 09 T T T M:? Cl) O 01
CO
W
LL
LL
a
c
O
= j C •> V O C tq
EE _ co oca uL o'
cQ q (.0 0 CO
NOn mN -q- m R tt
rmN CO tt tt Nc. O)f\
cq
c
0
E
7 > V O y
F- E o 0 a `-?? a m 0C
co0- in>AcnY
CA CA tr
O O CO CO p
O CO N °. 4 M OD tf>
O^ O N o c) tt Z N O `.
Cl)
W
J
LL
O
I
N
I .7 C > U O O
.g CD
c x C lL r 0
gcts cjnn°.22 in>cl) c"n?e
rn to to m q to o 0
It LO N It et t` co Q C7 0
t CO - r w w co N Z N O N
N

c
0
E m
v O c y
.O-. C? a lz W O
cis a
•C 0 0 0 0 B •CV Y
?cnaMMv»cnwY
0
N
O
N
cz
N
c
L
m
0
co
CC
(tl
0
O
O
a
a
c
m
d
7
m
Li

1.0
inches
.5
280
240 Q
200
160 gal/min
120
80
40
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
time (days)
Figure 5. Generalized Model for Interstorm Stream Flow Restoration

T
O
O
N
N
d
O1
V
v W
two
o .?
c LL
o a
U
C N
O G
O ?
N
3 0
LL J '
E
O
J
ffi?
W
LLI
W
J
W
J
m
a
GW
G
rr
W
CL
m
c
O
c
C1
a>
0
c
m
Co
n
b
N
~N
cn
U
W
m
c E
N N N
m ? C C
? N L
? y U
v c 5 c
moo a
d d
c 02 0
m x 6 3
L .- d cD
UEE
a °C
W W
Z_
Q -J
Z W
_O J
CD
!- Q
LLJ ~ 2
W cc
Q
W
CL
a
6,
CIS c
O tv
12 U

C
d
L
W
N
N
O
'n o
_U O
d
> OI _
Z W
m
Q W
Q
Z L?1
CD
a
N N
a N U
c c o
o p a
m o E •a
c in ? 3
x ?
E E
0 0
C iC
U N
O
C CD
O '
N r
O C
N
m L
?+ d
E ,?-
0 C
. etf
? U
^a
N
d
c
U C
O 63
a> =
cc: U
co
N
y--
O
L
CL
N
Z7-
0
4-0
0
`V
L-
0

i
Li:
N
c E
m r C
.m ? lb ?tl
W ? N L
? m V
v??o
mo?s
Ev
c 3
co
x?.
L .- N c0
U E E -

m m m m r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

'
Table 1. Stream Morphologic Parameters - WATER TREATMENT PLANT
'
Parameter Reach Morphologic Parameters
' Reference
ReachExisting Restored
Conditions Impaired Reach Conditions
' Sinuosity (a) 1.1 1 1.1
Pool/Riffle Ratio 2.29 0.172 2.29
Average Pool Spacing 17 250 17
' Meander Wavelength (b) 44 0 44
Bankfull Height.. 22" NA 22"
Bankfull width (c) 91-11' NA 91-11'
' Average Bankfull Depth (d) 11" NA 11"
Flood Prone Width (e) 20' to 29' NA 20' to 29'
Entrenchment Ratio (f) 1.8 to 2.4 NA 1.8 to 2.4
' Width/Depth Ratio 9 to 11 NA 9 to 11
Predominant Stream Type E5 NA
% E5
Minor Stream Type
' POOLS D50 (h) .25 to.5 mm .25 to .5 mm .25 to.5 mm
RIFFLES D50 (h) 5 to12 mm 5 to12'mm 5 to12 mm
' Valley Grade 0.0095 0.0085
Stream Grade (water slope 0.0086 0.0083 0.0085
0.0072
(a) sinuosity is the ration of the channel length over the valley length
' (b) meander wavelength is the average separation of the channel inflection points
(c) bankfull width is measured at the height of 'bankfull' or channel forming stage level
(d) average channel depth below the bankfull stage
(e) width of the channel at a height of 2x bankfull stage height
' (f) ratio of the floodprone width to channel width
(g) stream class using Rosgen, D.L. A Classification of Natural Rivers,

'
h) Catena, Vol. 22, 169-199, Elsevier Sci., B.V. Amsterdam
50% finer b
wei
ht
r
i
i
( g
y
g
a
n s
ze (mm)

0

u

Within Impaired Reach

n

C

Bank Conditions in
Wow Impaired Reach
Bedrock Nickpoint s in Flat Brank Creek
Below Impaired Reach `'.
"

C

1

0
U
uonait ions in
Above Impaired Reach

of Peach Above Impaired Section

6
+ e•. a}A ? 1^L

w
v
Popp

40

T` _ f . 1Y1, 1
Pond which will become a bottom land
recharge area for restored reach
r.
?f'?F`l/f„?_•. ++_Y 4?' Wit.
AIA
"T"r,Conditi ons in Flat Brank Creek" '
Within Impaired Reach

A L•

r?

Aq
W.
,
et

e. Vol
Typical Meander and Bank Conditions in Flat Brank Creek tom';
Below Impaired Reach
4 .
? :7 al?f

Bedrock Nickpoint s in Flat Brank Creek
Below Impaired Reach

t
of Reach Above Impaired Section

ind Bank Conditions in Flat Brank Creek
Above Impaired Reach

MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Providence Road/ I-485 Site County Mecklenburg
Project Number 99 County2
Recvd From APP Region Mooresville
Received Date 9/10/99 Recvd By Region 9/27/99
Project Type
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. - J
I IP I PT _*N F 11-138-3-2 r?---F30,838 1.24 2,240.00 1,580.0 660.00
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Create ?- 1.24
F_ I F_
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/fond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 350340 Longitude (ddmmss) 804620
Comments:
Applicant proposes to impact ,240 feet of intermittent and perennial stream channel, and 1.24 acres
of head water wetlands for the purpose of developing a retail shopping center. The amount of impact
of stream channel mandates that the applicant submit an IP application rather than a GP application.
A site review conducted on 9/24/99 confirmed the findings of the applicant's consultant with regards
to mitigatable/non-mitigatable portions of the channels. Mitigation is imposed for both the wetland
jmnar•,t. and the 1580 feet of channel impacts. Mitigation for the wetland impacts will be
acCom 'shp by the creation of 1,24+ acres of head water forest wetlands from existing upland
areas- A proposed conceptual design and wetland planting scheme is provided in the IP application.
There is potential for the creation of more than 1.24 acres of wetlands within the designated
metagatjw area, depending on actual storm water flows from both on-site and off-site development.
Thic wetland/detention pc nd is designed to satisfy QW0 SW requirements
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
Facility, Name Providence Road/ I-485 Site County 'Mecklenburg
Project Number 99 1000 Regional Contact: Michael L Parker
Date: 10/6/99
Comments (continued from page 1):
Channel mitigation is proposed on a section of channel located immediately downstream of the
eject. The channel to be restored appears to have been impacted as a result of past agricultural
practices in the area. Although the channel does have evidence of degradation, in the opinion of the
writer, the degree of degradation is considered low to moderate and, under normal circumstances
would not merit 1 A channel mitigation. However, the location of the channel to be restored
(immediately downstream of the subject project) does add to the channel's importance since the
channel will eventually receive all of the runoff from the subject property. Such being the case, we
offer no objection to the restoration pro osp ed by the applicant,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
ern
NCDENR
Memorandum To:
From:
Subject:
Ab? I--
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 7, 2000
Dave Penrose
Todd St. John
Childress-Klein
DWQ 991173
Mecklenburg County

I have reviewed the plans for the stream mitigation and the stormwater pond with
the surrounding wetland mitigation (again):
1) Stormwater pond design, dated February 22, 2000, appears to be adequate. The side
slopes of the berm between the wetland mitigation site and the pond are 2:1.
However, the berm is not tall and will likely be stable because the only runoff over
the berm will be from rain that falls on the berm itself. One side has a retaining wall. I
have been informed that that side will be fenced. Also, there is a vegetative shelf.
2) The applicant still needs to provide a signed and notarized O&M agreement for the
pond.
3) The proposed wetland mitigation plan seems adequate. Some or most of the
hydrology will be provided by the temporary pool discharge from the stormwater
treatment pond. As such, it is recommended that a flow path be provided through the
wetland from the stormwater pond temporary pool outlet that will cause the water to
pass through the majority of the wetland before it leaves the wetland. It is not
recommended the temporary pool outlet be changed from the location indicated in the
stormwater pond plans dated February 22, 2000.
4) The stream restoration plans are unique due to the nature of the stream section to be
restored. It is suggested that plan details form the under bed grade control structures
be obtained for the file. I also recommend that we approve the plan provided that the
biological monitoring requirements meet our requirements.
Anyway, all I need is the detail for the grade control structures proposed for the stream
restoration and the O&M agreement for the stormwater pond.
C-G: JP6 ?r 7
JAhl *m -we oP
1'15g4 ?q4,4 w.11 be ,.Q k wt, 4
.• ?r?G,.?
NCDENR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 7, 2000
Memorandum To: Dave Penrose
From: Todd St. John
Subject: Childress-Klein
DWQ 991173
Mecklenburg County
I'have reviewed the plans for the stream mitigation and the stormwater pond with
the surrounding wetland mitigation (again):
1) Stormwater pond design, dated February 22, 2000, appears to be adequate. The side
slopes of the berm between the wetland mitigation site and the pond are 2: l._
However, the berm is not tall and will likely be stable because the only runoff over
the berm will be from rain that falls on the berm itself. One side has a retaining wall. I
have been informed that that side will be fenced. Also, there is a vegetative shelf.
2) The applicant still needs to provide a signed and notarized O&M agreement for the
pond.
3) The proposed wetland mitigation plan seems adequate. Some or most of the
hydrology will be provided by the temporary pool discharge from the stormwater
treatment pond. As such, it is recommended that a flow path be provided through the
wetland from the stormwater pond temporary pool outlet that will cause the water to
pass through the majority of the wetland before it leaves the wetland. It is not
recommended the temporary pool outlet be changed from the location indicated in the
stormwater pond plans dated February 22, 2000.
4) The stream restoration plans are unique due to the nature of the stream section to be
restored. It is suggested that plan details form the under bed grade control structures
be obtained for the file. I also recommend that we approve the plan provided that the
biological monitoring requirements meet our requirements.
Anyway, all I need is the detail for the grade control structures proposed for the stream
restoration and the O&M agreement for the stormwater pond.
GG : Jobn Na^nt!)
Project No. DWQ
Project Name: Childress-Klein DWQ# 991173
SUBMITTED DESIGN:
elevations
Bottom ofBasin (ft)
Permanent Pool.(ft)
Temporary Pool (ft)
.areas
Permanent Pool SA (sq-ft)
Drainage Area (ac)
Impervious Area (ar-)
volumes
PermanentPool (cu ft)
Temporary Pool (cu ft)
Forebay (cu ft)
other parameters
SAIDA_
Orif ce Diameter (in)
Design Rainfall (in)
640
653.
657.2-
35000-
74.2
36.2
21-8550
134673
49660.
Q.
-4
1
REQUIRED DESIGN:
status
13 ft. depth check depth ?GjGN??'
4.2 ft. depth ok ?1 rq
344-86 sq.
48:8 %
13-1'733 cu.
22.7%
1.07
0.61 cfs
2.6 da`
Linear Interpolation of Correct SA/DA
Next Lowest
Project Impervious
Next Highest

13 ft, Permanent- P
-% Impervious SA/DA from T,
40 0.9
48:8- 1.07
-50 1.09

Geotechnical, Civil,
Environmental &
Construction Materials
Engineering
GROUP
To
Attn:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
fosj &I: AV L a DATE: • ZZ • o v Job #
L
Wknm a &av
We are sending you: Attached 0 I, isearate cover
v „
;?(J(
VIA: Overnight ?Regu ar
® ?ER A
The following items: HShop Drawings Prints
Specifications M Copy of Letter
Hand Delivered/Couriered
R Plans R Disks
Change Order Other
Copies Date No. Description
?? Z•2 •6V
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For Approval E As Requested EApproved as Submitted F-1 Returned for Corrections
For your use For Review and Comment Approved as Noted
Remarks:
Copy To: Signed:
500 Clanton Road Charlotte, North Carolina
Suite K 28217
Telephone Facsimile
704.525.2003 704.525.2051
Project No. DWQ (to he prnvided by DWQ)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 WET DETENTION BASIN WORKSHEET
DWO Stormwater Management Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittal includes a wet detention basin worksheet for each
basin, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all basin and outlet structure details, and a
fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a
request for additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the fol owin information):
Project Name : l?(l?vn N ?t"Dc? iL(V• 2? zI i 2rbo?
Contact Person: 4cv1_1 64115;601? Phone Number: ( 70¢ 1 s ZS zoo
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
Basin Bottom Elevation 6,40 ft.
Permanent Pool Elevation (0.53 ft.
Temporary Pool Elevation &S7. ft.
Permanent Pool Surface Area "751 00'b sq. ft.
Drainage Area '74, Z ac.
Impervious Area 36• -z' ac.
Permanent Pool Volume
Temporary Pool Volume
Forebay Volume
SA/DA used
Diameter of Orifice
II. REQUIRED ITEM
7-18, 55-o cu. ft.
t 34, 6't cu. ft.
4?1, eta cu. ft.
O,?tZ
in.
S CHECKLIST
(average elevation of the floor of the basin)
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
(water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
(on-site and off site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(combined volume of main basin and forebay)
(volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
(surface area to drainage area ratio)
(draw down orifice diameter)
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stormwater Best Management Practices
manual (N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, November 1995) and
Administrative Code Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008. Initial in the space provided to indicate the
following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. IJ' a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why.
Applicants Initials
406-> The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch storm event.
4?&' The basin length to width ratio is greater than 3:1.
4--, The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf at less than 6:1 is provided.
s Vegetation to the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
965- The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
4&' The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
96' - The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the total basin volume.
- Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
?- Access is provided for maintenance.
A minimum 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet.
A site specific operation and maintenance (O&M) plan is provided.
A vegetation management/mowing schedule is provided in the 0&M plan.
-_- Semi-annual inspections are specified in the O&M plan.
A debris check is specified in the O&M plan to be performed after every storm event.
--t56' A specific sediment clean-out benchmark is listed (elevation or depth) in O&M plan.
--t565? A responsible party is designated in the O&M plan.
FORM SWG 100 09/97 Page I of 1

?? . z ? z l? z o o

-

t. lYn ?U6V1!1?MTS ----lb._._ ?r4LL/q.r?i't4'r+?. ? - ----
Z?
3? ??oP, f3L?G-5 - to-
4) M ?s? . ? - I s ?.

b(D ('-+MP t U?vS = ??°' !' _ 0. 4q olo `? 01"x( Sb
24. Z

Del'

0= qZ
Sv e Fie 4"74 74. Z?
2

1

-/ 5 O D t7 FT Z
1ZtJ -- V. 05 -----
_ O•ov? _
_ = D 03 -t CSp} - b•Sd
- -- - --------
-- •- --- - L__- -- - ----- --- - -- - -
t
?s b- L.os
s ??$aa
Imo,
?c 9-vc?
Poop = 653 t -Z
u
D(! GCo e-G-e p,pG'

6 s-7• Za
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
PROJECT: PROMENADE(1" RAINFALL SS)
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE-
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE-STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks*Z^b
S = STORAGE (ft^3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE ACC.
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft) STORAGE(act)
653 35000 0
35800 35800 0.82
654 36600 1
37450 73250 1.68
655 38300 2
39200 112450 2.58
656 40100 3
41000 153450 3.52
657 41900 4
SOLVING FOR CONSTANTS Ks & b:
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
SELECT EXISTING VALUES TO MODEL CONSTANTS BY.
Z1 = 1
22 = 4
S1 = 35800
S2 = 153450
b = (In(S2/S1))/(In(Z2/Z1))
b = 1.05
Ks = S2/Z2^b
Ks = 35800
VALIDATION OF STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION:
ACTUAL ACTUAL COMPUTED
STORAGE STAGE STORAGE
S(ft^3) Z(ft) S(ft^3)
35800.00 1 35800.00
73250.00 2 74118.22
112450.00 3 113448.21
153450.00 4 153450.00
0 0.00
COMPUTED
STAGE
Z(ft)
1.00
1.98
2.97
4.00
0.00
THEREFORE THE STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION IS ADEQUATE
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
PROJECT: Forebay
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. forebay
MAIN COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
640 5500 0
29120 29120
644 9060 4
45920 75040
648 13900 8
30500 105540
650 16600 10
36100 141640
652 19500 12
27250 168890
653 35000 13
forebay COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
642 320 0
8180 8180
646 3770 4
9540 17720
648 5770 6
31940 49660
652 10200 10
Project No. DWQ (to he provided by UWQ)
DIVISION OF WATE - 401 WET DETENTION BASIN WORKSHEET
DW Stormwater Mana en efevi'bw
A complete stormwater m1,iani dent pGiii_ submittal includes a wet detention basin worksheet for each
basin, design calculationsaftlif'scations showing all basin and outlet structure details, and a
clef,;,
fully executed operation a intenance agz&? lent.An incomplete submittal package will result in a
request for additional infotio}® ,alsubstantia(Ty delay final review and approval of the project.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION 7P? lete t followin information):
` e
Project Name : I?f??'v! k?"?? 2 l
2 ZI 200D
Contact Person: "7co 641,960?:!? Phone Number: ( 70¢) SL$' zoo
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
Basin Bottom Elevation 0-10 ft. (average elevation of the floor of the basin)
Permanent Pool Elevation (os 3 ft. (elevation of the orifice.invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation &S7•z ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area ':'?7 5-, 00b sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation):
Drainage Area ?4• Z ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Permanent Pool Volume Zl? 55-0 cu. ft. (combined volume of main basin and forebay)
Temporary Pool Volume 134,613, cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
Forebay Volume 4a, b( 'a cu. ft.
SA/DA used Z (surface area to drainage area ratio)
Diameter of Orifice in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stormwater Best Management Practices
manual (N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, November 1995) and
Administrative Code Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008. Initial in the space provided to indicate the
following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of'why.
Applicants Initials
106> The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch storm event.
The basin length to width ratio is greater than-3 :1.
- The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf at less than 6:1 is provided.
Vegetation to the permanent pool elevation is specified.
9p(=5- An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
9- The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
46>' The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
-?- The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the total basin volume.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
ms's- Access is provided for maintenance.
- A minimum 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet.
- A site specific operation and maintenance (0&M) plan is provided.
A vegetation management/mowing schedule is provided in the O&M plan.
-g? Semi-annual inspections are specified in the O&M plan.
A debris check is specified in the O&M plan to be performed after every storm event.
A specific sediment clean-out benchmark is listed (elevation or depth) in O&M plan.
- A responsible party is designated in the O&M plan.
FORM SWG 100 09/97 Page 1 of I
r2bmN,OE% ---- M4!i-- Z zoo a .
ra fzoo-Z)
5-1 &P4
7 Z .

----To -? *t,c-A m -rtf P+ E
Z-? ?? • ? r-tT?21? fL 1??4D5 l {?i?-? L? ? rt L = (?'l • ( q-c

fit, D G-5 c5. A
4) M t 5G • ? s ?

-------- - -----
4q
-74-7,

Pal'
[Z? 4 .P Sv e O qZ 74. Z C9.
too
72 __

AVAlG 5u2fACC5 ? ? SF
z
-Z7 5 CP PT

D D5 t ov?jCSp) = D•Sd

,N
PAIN PAt ---
47
6 57
t p, pc'
Ur7EJ PIPFi
K et>
o
a,
FI-
___
- r- _
.
_
--
--

_ Tiam P

? Gr?E ?vt?g,°rY - TO

FOOL,
Ih I N ` O O
-
---MAIN Pool t
;4y

-
l

Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21/00
PROJECT: PROMENADE(1" RAINFALL SS)
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE-
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE-STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks*Z^b
S = STORAGE (ft^3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE ACC.
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft"3) (ft) STORAGE(act)
653 35000 0
35800 35800 0.82
654 36600 1
37450 73250 1.68
655 38300 2
39200 112450 2.58
656 40100 3
41000 153450 3.52
657 41900 4
SOLVING FOR CONSTANTS Ks & b:
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
PROJECT: Forebay
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. forebay
MAIN COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
Co NT[111R__ _ [_nKlTl11_ID 1AtnoCAAG"-r_A_1_ w .--
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
SELECT EXISTING VALUES TO MODEL CONSTANTS BY.
Z1 = 1
Z2 = 4
S1 = 35800
S2 = 153450
b = (In(S2/S1))/(In(Z2/Z1))
b = 1.05
Ks = S2/Z2^b
Ks= 35800
VALIDATION OF STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION:
ACTUAL ACTUAL COMPUTED
STORAGE STAGE STORAGE
S(ft^3) Z(ft) S(ft^3)
35800.00 1 35800.00
73250.00 2 74118.22
112450.00 3 113448.21
153450.00 4 .153450.00
0 0.00
COMPUTED
STAGE
Z(ft)
1.00
1.98
2.97
4.00
0.00
THEREFORE THE STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION IS ADEQUATE
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
SELECT EXISTING VALUES TO MODEL CONSTANTS BY.
Z1 = 1
Z2 = 4
S1 = 35800
S2 = 153450
b = (In(S2/S1))/(In(Z2/Z1))
b = 1.05
Ks = S2/Z2^b
Ks = 35800
VALIDATION OF STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION:
ACTUAL ACTUAL COMPUTED COMPUTED
STORAGE STAGE STORAGE STAGE
S(ft^3) Z(ft) S(ft^3) Z(ft)
35800.00 1 35800.00 1.00
73250.00 2 74118.22 1.98
112450.00 3 113448.21 2.97
153450.00 4 .153450.00 4.00
0 0.00 0.00
THEREFORE THE STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION IS ADEQUATE
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/21 /00
PROJECT: Forebay
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. forebay
MAIN COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
640 5500
29120 29120
644 9060
45920 75040
648 13900
30500 105540
650 16600
36100 141640
652 19500
27250 168890
653 35000
forebay COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
642 320
8180 8180
646 3770
9540 17720
648 5770
31940 49660
652 10200
0
4
8
10
12
13
0
4
6
10

\
\

Z
j ' ,'•• ° z A
..,? P) •., w ¢ g
Lo ?o av . ci U)
«
rft 010
? sue' V) Li ll?
00
a ? ?7
- -------------
\
1.10
° d 1
- ---------------
----------------
---------------- ?. ''w,, SZ•? 1? ---------------------
00041
--------
\` jr------------------------- ---------?
N?10.
\'`, \'` \ 7y ??
ks)
\
?\`\ \ \ 444666 \
\ e `\

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

---------------- ------
w t a

? i
660
co
co
1
co
CAD

I-- 1
J'
I

>60 -.?.

\\
\I \ \ \ \.
-----------------
d
O
d i
dpi ?`Zs' C o2s
` qSS O ?
0
------------ -----------
o ,
------ ----
\\`? 660 S
°<o

-------------
,
,
,
,
,
\\\,\,\ \, ` \ r
\ .
----------------
Te.
\ \ \ ` \ ?\\ ` j/ \ S \
---
,

660
0
U-)
J
a
U
N
w ?j g
zz&? ?
LLJ
FCI
0102,

co
I
' - I
N
i• ?h.

'' , 1
cl
Environmental Planning Consultant FEB 1 7 2000 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning ..? - Tele: [phone]
r, '+aR?'Jt Fax [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSNIITTAL
TO : - U! /A<-? DATE: 1'f?r?U
PROJECT : I -> i ° q9 3 i Z I 'Z-- PRODA
ITEMS SENT :
5- Z Prey f 0 ED'I&C F&AO PPJ t-&r
COMMENTS:
j ? ?'(f ? (7 0-1-4 PLA7-4 W'L-(- PG: c1r?r,)eZ--
BY• A" COPY:

PROMENADE
at
Interstate 485 and
Providence Road
Wetland. Mitigation Design
Prepared For:
Mr. David Haggart
Childress 10ein Properties
2800 One First Union Center
301 S. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6021 %
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
`Subject to verification by the USACE
Date : 2/14/00
9

TABU 0 TS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVE
3.0 APPROACH
3.1 Hydrology
3.2 Solis
3.3 Vegetation.
4.0 MITIGATION SITE DESCRIPTION
5.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY
6.0 PLANTING
4
7.0 MONITORING
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring
7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
7.5 Contingency Plata
6.6 Report Submittal
8.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
8.1 Vegetation Management
8.2 Inspections
8.3 As-builts Benchmark for Sediment Removal
9.0 PROTECTION FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX A
e
Promenade
Wetland Mitigation Flan
1.0 MT1l;ODUCTION
Childress-Klien Properties, Charlotte, NC is currently developing the Promenade, a
mixed-use project consisting of residential, retail, and office facilities. The uniquely
designed project concept was locally approved by the Mecklenburg County
Commissioners on April 13, 1999. The developers are committed to creating an
environmentally responsible project. Minimization and mitigation measures were
developed based on discussions with the USAGE, NCDWQ, and other federal and state
agencies. The plan and commitments made in this report reflect a positive response to
the preliminary discussions, determinations, and concerns of the regulatory agencies.
Except for temporary construction and development impacts, we believe that the
proposed project with the proposed mitigation will not cause significant cumulative
impacts to the ecological functions or values of Jurisdictional Waters of the United
States.
Background
As previously described in the Individual Permit Report and Supporting Documentation
(Permit) document, wetlands were encountered on the project site. Childress-Klein
Properties has applied for a Department of the Army Permit and 401 Water Quality
Certification to discharge fill material into an unnamed intermittent tributary of Flat
Branch and 1.24 acres of wetlands and 1580 linear feet of stream channel with important
aquatic function in conjunction with the development of a 52 acre regional commercial
center at the intersection of Providence Road (NC 16); Interstate 485; and Ballantyne
Commons Parkway in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The stream and
adjacent wetlands originate on the property. Since. Ballantyne Commons Parkway and
Providence Road are near the ridge line the upstream watershed is minor. The streams
and wetlands on the site will be impacted by the extensive grading required to prepare
the site for the development.
The developer has responded to comments regarding avoidance, minimization,
mitigation requirements and stormwater treatment requirements. The requested permit
considered an evaluation of the probable and cumulative impacts and its intended use on
the public interest. Based on a comprehensive analysis we believe that this proposal
complies with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. The
economic benefits of this project have been balanced by a significant mitigation plan to
minimize and balance the environmental consequences. The proposal reflects the
national concern for both the protection and utilization of important resources. Relevant
factors included in the proposal include general environmental concerns, wetlands,
cultural values, fish and wildlife values, land use, water quality, considerations of
property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the public.
AV
Based on a field survey the proposed activity will not affect species, or their critical
habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. The survey conducted by Dr.. James Matthews of the Habitat Assessment
Restoration Program is included in this report.
According to the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places for
the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for
inclusion therein, this site is not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Based on a field survey conducted by Thomas Hargrove of
Archaeological Research Consultants no important archaeological, scientific,
prehistorical, or historical data will be lost or destroyed by work under the requested
permit. His report was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and
concurrence.
Aquatic Habitat
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of headwater wetlands and intermittent
tributaries of Flat Branch. A variety of wildlife is supported by these systems including
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, mollusks, and crustaceans. Therefore
strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
maintained during the construction period in order to control degradation of water quality
downstream and protect the areas to be preserved. Short term construction impacts,
primarily stream sedimentation will affect aquatic habitat, however this will be
minimized to the extent practicable to promote rapid recovery. Project construction will
strictly adhere,to an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan. Best Management
Practices will include utilizing siltation trapping ponds and other erosion control
structures where appropriate. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish
and aquatic life such as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be
located near surface waters. Also, as required by the 401 Water Quality Certification
conditions, measures will be taken to prevent "live" or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters until the concrete has hardened. Aquatic resources are expected to be
enhanced through the restoration of wetland areas that flood and pond for longer
durations.
Proposed Mitigation
The compensatory mitigation proposal involves the creation of approximately 1.24 acres
of wetlands to meet the minimum 1:1 restoration/creation State of North Carolina
wetland mitigation requirement. Additionally, 17 acres of swamp forest and upland
buffers (part. of the Providence Flats) will be preserved. Stream mitigation will be
conducted by restoring approximately 1,580 linear feet of degraded stream channel
through agricultural land downstream of the project. Stream restoration goals for this
reach includes restoring and creating a self sustaining stable stream, improving habitat,
and using natural materials to improve stream aesthetics.

Site Spec€ lle Information
The site is within the headwater drainage area of an unnamed tributary to Flat Branch, a
tributary to Six Mile Creek, in the Sugar Creek Sub-Basin of the Catawba River (Water
Classification - C). The majority of the site is moderately sloping former agricultural
land and timbered woodland (except for several mature oak tress) which has succeeded
to woodland. in various stages of secondary succession to mature forest. Areas of
wetlands were found in connection with the headwater tributaries.
The forested and scrub/shrub headwater wetland areas are dominated by Facultative,
Facultative Wet and Obligate species. Trees include willow oak, green ash, red maple,
black willow, alder, silky dogwood, spicebush, and sweetgum. Understory and
herbaceous strata includes smilax, microstegium, sedges, soft rush, and others.
Herbaceous and scrub/shrub vegetation are more dominant in areas subject to constant
saturation or flooding, and areas in earlier succession.
s
Wetlands areas appear to occur in Iredell soils on this site. iredell B soil may have hydric
inclusions according to the Soil Conservation Service, Technical Guide-Section II-A-2,
June 1991.
RratgR' classifigatim - C
The unnamed tributary of Flat Branch is part of the Catawba River Basin and currently
classified a Class C - aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Wetlands associated with the tributaries are the result surface
runoff, springs/seeps, and a high seasonal water table. The clayey subsoils contribute to
the development of perched wetlands along the tributaries. Most of the streams were
confirmed as having important aquatic value by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Characteristics include persistent pools,
macro-invertebrates; evidence of wildlife utilizing the stream.; and gravelly to sandy
channel substrate. The wetlands on this site were be found to have important function
and value in regard to pollution removal, bank stabilization, aquatic life resources
utilizing Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina - Fourth 'v'ersion.
The wetlands on this site can be described as Pal.ustrine Forested Broad - Leaved
Temporarily Flooded. They have formed in perched water table conditions, in flat to
nearly level areas and depressions over an extremely dense clay soil layer often typical of
Iredell soils. According to Soil Conservation Service, Technical Guide-Section II-A-2,
June 1991, IrA soils are listed as Map Units with inclusions of Hydric Soils in
Mecklenburg County. As depicted on the attached map the extent of the Jurisdictional
0
Waters of the U.S. on this 52 acre site is approximately 1.43 acres, of which wetlands
consist of 1.24 acres. .
Pegetative Communities
A majority of the site is in various stages of old field succession from formerly farmed
areas. The wetland areas are generally forested.
Bottomiand .1cHardwoodWeadwater Forest
The Bottomland Hardwood and Headwater Forests on this site have developed in the flat
to nearly level drainageways and depressions. Species which occur in these areas include
Willow Oak (dominant species), Green Ash, Sweetgum, Red Maple, Hackberry, Shumard
Oak, Ironwood, and other typical species that tolerate these wet and shallow root
conditions. Common understory trees and shrubs include silky dogwood, and alder.
Woody vines include poison ivy, and greenbriar. The herbaceous layer is variable based
on exposure to light. Species include sedge and rush species, jewelweed, and others
Open Field
This includes all non-wetland areas dominated by herbaceous plants, such as the power
line right of. ways and other cleared areas. These have been periodically mowed and are
dominated by pasture grasses and perennial herbs including broomsedge, goldenrod, and
bush clover, Other areas have been undisturbed for longer and are in transition to
dominant species such as blackberry, greenbriar, redcedar, pines, and saplings.
Mved Forest
The non-wetland. forested areas of the site are dominated by mixed forest. The Mixed
Forest is characterized by a mixture of canopy species of pines and hardwoods. Small
areas within these forest areas may have a predominance of pine or hardwoods. Pines
include sh+ortleaf pine, Virginia pine, and loblolly pine, with eastern redcedar. Hardwoods
include pine, sweetgum, red maple, red oak, white oak, tulip poplar, hickory, and other
common species. The subcanopy contains saplings and seedlings of canopy species.
Other subcanopy species include black cherry, holly, dogwood, elm., and privet. Woody
vines common in the understory include poison ivy, muscadine grape, honeysuckle, and
other herbaceous and woody species.
Hydrophytic Vegetation has been identified according to the National Est gf 121ant
Species That Qccur in Wetlands: Southeast C&yZon 4 US Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service.

jurisdictional haters of the U.& and Description
1) Wetland (PF'O1A) ± 1.24 acres
2) Intermittent/Perennial Stream (± 1580 if "important") + 0.17 acres
3) Intermittent. Stream (± 660 If "unimportant") . + 0.02 acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters* ± 1.43 acres
No Practicable AlternativedAvoidance Analysis
The northwest comer of Providence Road and 1-485 has been zoned for commercial use
since 1990. At the time of the original zoning of the property, the construction of 1485
had not yet commenced. However, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
(CMPC)) recognized that the construction of a new freeway would create tremendous
pressure for new development. Therefore, in 1990, the CMPC with cooperation from
area landowners and residents created the Providence Road/1-485 Small Area Land Use
Plan (also known as the Special Project Plan). This plan suggested appropriate land uses
for all properties within the sphere of influence of the Providence Road/I-485
interchange, an area. roughly covering a one-mile radius around the interchange. This
plan was approved by vote of both the Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg
County Commission. The intent was to function as a "road map" for the future
development of this area.
The 52 acre subject property was designated to contain the following commercial land
uses: 300,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of retail space and a 250 4
room hotel. The designation of this site for such commercial uses was dictated by several
attributes of the site:
1. With 1,200 feet of frontage on providence Road and 1,900 feet of frontage on
Ballantyne Commons Parkway, the Subject Property is one of the few sites in the sphere
of influence that offers adequate access to accommodate commercial uses.
2. The other two sides of the site front 1485 and the Jonesville AVE Zion . Church.
Therefore, the lack of adjacency to residential areas eliminates difficult transition
concerns, making this site appropriate for commercial uses.
3. The site's adjacency to the interchange minimizes the traffic impact on the overall
road network within the sphere of influence, Another site within this area might have to
``pull" traffic through a neighborhood and create a longer drive distance from the
freeway.
The previous stated reasons for designating the site as a commercial laird use plan also
delineate the reasons that no alternative plans or alternate site is available. The land use
plan considered all sites within the sphere of influence for the appropriate use. If the use
of the Subject Property were changed, in theory, another site within the sphere of
0
influence would have to "swap" its use with the Subject Property. This would involve
trading development rights with another landowner, an unlikely scenario at best. More
importantly, all other sites were already evaluated during the study process and
commercial land uses were determined to be the best use of the Subject Property.
Reduction of scope was also not considered feasible for the development of the Subject
Property. The wetland and streams that are proposed to be impacted lie in the center of
the site. In order to avoid the wetlands and the streams, the site would have to be divided
into two separate sites on opposite sides of the stream. Neither portion on its own could
function with appropriate amounts of building and parking areas. Additionally the stream
bed is so much lower than the proposed finished grades based on . engineering
requirements (15' - 20') that it would be difficult to create any continuity between the
two sections of the development. It is likely that the total square footage of the project
would have to be reduced by 50% or more to accommodate this scenario. The loss of this
amount of square footage is not economically feasible.
Another constraining factor for the project is the entrance locations. The Providence
Road entrance to the project, is based on its relationship to 1-485 and the intersection
with $allantyne Commons Parkway, since the curb cut cannot move avoidance is even
more difficult from a land use perspective. The entrance immediately encounters a
section of wetlands, the edge of which ranges from 130' to 200' from the road
right-of-way. This is very tight spacing and would require that an entrance driveway have
a severe angle in it to avoid this wetland area. An angled driveway would be difficult to
design and would not be functional.
There is also, according to Dr. Randy Forsythe, of University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, a strong likelihood that development adjacent to this perched wetland would
directly and negatively impact the wetlands. The hydrological support to this wetland
habitat will likely to be non-sustainable due to the loss of recharge through the interflow
zones over the dense soil layer. It is also likely the seasonal water table that feeds the
groundwater seep at the head of the intermittent tributary will be lower, further reducing
the sustainability of the wetland and stream hydrology. Thus, even if a discharge to the
wetland could be avoided, adjacent unregulated activity will likely impact the
jurisdictional wetland negatively.
nindt ation Anraiysis
As stated in the previous paragraph, the impacted streams and wetlands on the subject
property lie in the center of an almost square site. The proposed site plan for the 500,000
square foot development on the subject property is the result of a yearlong process
involving the developer, CMPC Staff and the public.. In early 1998, the landowner
selected Childress Klein Properties to develop the property. Market conditions at that
time suggested that there was more demand for retail space than office space. The
developer filed a rezoning application in June, 1998. At the same time, after an urging
from the neighborhoods, CMPC determined that the 1990 Special Project Plan needed to

be updated. After nine months of public meetings, the CMPC staff issued a draft revised
land use plan, dated February 3, 1999. This was approved by the CMPC on April 20,
1999.
In this plan, the suggested use for the Subject Property is "predominantly retail and a ...
limited amount of second-story office." The plan also suggests that the site should create
a central open space that acts as a focal point to the development." These statements
reflect current trends in urban planning, which suggest that retail development needs to
be more pedestrian friendly and return to a "Main Street" type feel. In fact, the CMPC
document suggests that a guiding principle of community design is "Main Street" retail
that creates a Main Street for the area by placing buildings along local streets with
parking located behind buildings. The design guidelines go further by stating that retail
area should be walkable, should have a village character, should include a green space
component, and should be a focal point for the community.
The current zoning of the property was approved on April 13, 1999. A key requirement of
the zoning addresses the design guidelines by requiring a village green of one acre in
size. The attached plan the site plan shows the village green with streams and wetlands
overlaid. For the village green to be functional as a pedestrian-oriented space, it must
have a good system of streets that lead into it and it must have a good grade relationship
to the buildings that surround it. The street network also allows the site plan to
accommodate the "Main Street" design requirements.
This concept would be impossible to create without significant grading. The elevation of
stream #1 (as shown on the site plan ranges from 15-20 feet below most of the
surrounding area which is an "S" shaped ridge. The distance from building face to
building face across the village green is approximately 300 feet. In order to function as a
pedestrian friendly space, the slope across the area should not exceed 5%. This means
that the building floor elevations on either side of the green must be within 15 feet of
each other. To accomplish this and leave the stream bed undisturbed is impossible. If the
stream were to be saved, it would be located within: a ravine. Detaining walls would have
to be located on either side of the stream to make up the grade difference of 15-20 feet
from the bottom of the stream bed to the proposed finished elevation of the village green.
In order to stay below the Individual Permit threshold of 500 linear feet, +/- 1,200 linear
feet of stream would have to be preserved on site. This length translates into +/- 2,400
linear feet of retaining walls. If the average height of the walls was 15 feet, the retaining
walls would cost $504,000 at a unit price of $14/square foot plus approximately $40,000
for foundations. Therefore, the total cast would likely exceed one half million dollars.
Another important part of the zoning is that the parking areas must be shielded by
buildings and be located outside the building envelope as shown on the technical data
sheet attached as Exhibit "B". This forces all buildings into the middle of the site where
the streams and steepest grades are located. The previous paragraph gives a good
description of the challenges presented by trying to modify the current plan and comply
with the zoning on the property. If the stream were saved with retaining walls, the stream
Of
would likely become dry since most of the drainage that currently feeds into the stream
would go into the new storm drainage system.. Since the site sits at the tap of the drainage
basin, any development scenario would likely remove most of the current drainage into
these streams. Therefore, as dry stream beds, and _ sitting so far below the surface, they
would be aesthetically detrimental to the site.
Determination of f No Practicable Alternative
This project is designed to take advantage of the well planned road transportation system
enabling,the region to be served. The driving force behind all retail developments is the
strength of the anchor tenants. The stronger the anchors, the larger the geographical,
draw will be, resulting in overall success for the smaller shops which are often owned
and operated by residents of the community. Vacant buildings resulting from poor
planning and improper design in retail centers create eyesores within the community. For
these reasons, the wetland area should be filled for retail development. Reducing the size
of the buildings does not meet current market design standards and can severely
jeopardize the success of the project in this highly competitive industry. Therefore it
would not be feasible as a project.
In conclusion, due to the site planning constraints (earthwork) of a development of this
type, large contiguous areas must be graded for building pads and parking. To balance
the environmental consequences of these unavoidable impacts to surface waters and
wetlands the developer has proposed minimization measures and a mitigation plan that
has been developed in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, and representatives of local
environmental organizations.
In response to the neighborhood and community concern the developer modified its site
plan to save many mature groups of existing trees as highlighted on the technical data
sheet for the Public Hearing Petition #98-49(c). A substantial landscaping plan will
include a variety of hardy indigenous groups and specimens and large trees that will, in
time, re-establish a canopy, although in a more planned urban setting. As part of the
wetland mitigation plan the developer is proposing preservation in perpetuity of a large
mature forested wetland and adjacent forested buffer from future development impacts
immediately downstream of this project.
General Site Planning Criterira for Retail Shopping Centers
The retail shopping center layout is based on visibility from surrounding roads, continuity
between buildinds, vehicular access and parking, and general service for store
deliveries/maintenance. In addition, local municipalities place other requirements such
as building, and parking setbacks, landscape/screening requirements, and access for
emergency vehicles (i.e., fire trucks). Normally corners are coveted locations for anchor
tenants, especially when access points are incorporated nearby. The large anchor tenants
of
that attract the majority of shoppers are therefore given the highest priority in site
selection. They tend to be large credit worthy corporations that guarantee the financial
success of a project. If the anchor tenant does not attract shoppers, then the associated
shops generally will not be successful either.' Parking bays for anchor tenants are
designed to provide quick, easy access to the store front. Generally the majority of
parking spaces are located within 300 feet from the front door, although parking bay
depth may be 400 to 500 feet in order to provide the required number of parking spaces
to meet code requirements. General building configuration can take several forms
depending on the size and shape of the site. Service and maintenance areas are located in
the rear of each building - - normally a continuous asphalt service road runs the entire
length of the shopping facility. The ideal service area for anchor tenants is generally
80-100 feet wide; however, under more restrictive conditions this dimension can be
reduced to 50-60 feet. All deliveries and service calls are made in this area; and it must
be able to accommodate large semi-tractor/trailer trucks 40 feet in length. Grading the
site is also a significant determinant in providing vehicular/pedestrian access and views
from the adjacent roadways. The anchor buildings are generally placed at a vertical
elevation that will promote a reasonable view into the site from the road. The buildings
cannot be too high or low such that the view of the anchor tenant(s) will be obscured in
anyway. The parking lot grades generally do not exceed 3 vertical feet in 100 linear feet
(3-percent) in order to provide easy pedestrian access to the retail stores from any area in
the parking lot. This gentle slope also allows drivers to park easily, get in-and-out of
their cars with minimal difficulty, and makes the movement of shopping carts feasible.
Most sites that are chosen for retail development will generally have reasonable slopes
from 2-8 percent in addition to being strategically located within the community. The
site will be leveled in order to create views from the roadway, promote convenient
circulation within the site, and allow the use of slab-on-grade foundation construction for
the buildings. In addition to these general size and layout requirements, Local and State
governments generally specify other site and building code restrictions. Access . and
parking requirements are established by local ordinance and by the governing body
responsible for maintaining the adjacent roads. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation makes the final determination on proposed driveway permits.
More important than size, the buildings of each shopping area are oriented to provide
deliberate, unobstructed views to each other and to the adjoining roads. Internal visibility
of storefronts has a huge impact on the success of small local shops as they rely on the
traffic from the larger anchor stores to see their signage and therefore patronize their
stores. Tying the development parcels together visually to form a single development is
the most important factor in making this a project successful. Direct visual access to a
retail anchor is considered paramount to the success of a shopping facility.
Proposed Impacts
Due to engineering and grading requirements impacts to the streams and wetlands on this
site cannot be avoided. Minimization and significant mitigation measures are proposed.
r
Streams with important aquatic, function
mitigation is purposed = ± 1,5801fby piping and
culverting (0.15 acres)
Ephemeral/hAerrnittent Streams w/unimportant aquatic function
mitigation is n©tproposed x±-660 if by general site development
(0.04 acres)
Summary ofWe land Impacts =±1.24 acres by general site
development
2.0 MlMGAT1ON PLAN OBJECTWE
To compensate for unavoidable impacts, the Permit proposed significant and important
wetland creation to balance the environmental consequences of the proposed
development on wetlands and water quality. The objective and goal of this plan is to
outline the creation of at least 1.24 acres of periodically saturated and occasionally
flooded palustrine wetlands. The form of mitigation will include developing areas of
headwater forests in various forms that are saturated within the root zone or
inundated for a significant portion of the growing season. The zones will be based on
the expected saturation and inundation of the particular zones and tolerances and include:
• Bottomland hardwoods
• Scrub/shrub
• Emergent/herbaceous
• Open water/aquatic zones
These zones adjacent to .surfaces waters will help to improve water quality by filtering
runoff, trapping sediment, absorbing nutrients, and providing wildlife habitat and a food
source for aquatic organisms, herpetofauna, birds, fish and other wildlife. These
wetlands are to be located in conjunction with a stonnwater pond.
3.0 APPROACH
The creation and enhancement/restoration of at least 1.24 acres of wetlands ranging from
bottomland hardwood forests to emergent wetlands will replace diverse habitat that has
been impacted. Areas that will be converted to wetlands will be excavated and these
materials will not be used to fill any wetlands unless authorized by the USACE. The
mitigation, areas, where necessary, will be backfilled to finish grades with suitable
topsoil/hydric soil and stabilized as necessary to restore the hydrological planting zones
and drainage patterns. Tinder normal conditions for the area, the soils are expected to be
inundated and/or saturated during the winter months and early spring for a period of at
least 5 to 12.5% of the growing season.
341 Hydrolov
The following hydrological zones are expected to occur within the wetland mitigation
areas:
• Semipermanently to permanently: area is inundated or saturated
from 75-100% of the growing season.
• Regularly: area is inundated or saturated from 25-75% of the growing
season.
• Seasonally: area is inundated or saturated from 12.5-25% of the
growing season.
# Irregularly: area is inundated or saturated from 5-12.5% of the
growing season,
3.2 Sails
Soil from previously permitted impacted wetlands, but as yet not impacted; will be
stripped and stored as feasible for use in lining the wetland mitigation sites. The soils
that occur in the area include lredell Series, which are known to have dense clay subsoils.
Using these existing soils in the proposed mitigation sites may hasten the development of
hydric soil conditions in the proposed wetland mitigation sites.
3.3 Vegetation
Planting includes a variety of saturation tolerant tree, shrub and herbaceous species that
are also high in wildlife value. The planting plan will also encourage a diverse canopy
and mid-story vegetation. The ' primary criteria that plant selections are based is the
duration of soil saturation. Plant species tolerant of appropriate hydrologic conditions
will. be specified in the mitigation areas. Forested mitigation areas will be planted in an
initial density of'500 woddy.;.,stems per acre, scrub/shrub areas will have an initial density
of_1000 ,sterns._pex acre and herbaceous; plantings will be performed in organized patterns
and groupings of a similar hydrophytic zone.
4.0 MM+C ATION SI'll'E DESCRIPTION
To compensate for wetland loss a site has been chosen adjacent to the required
stormwater treatment and detention facility. This area is a low point in the landscape.
The creation site will involve the removal of soil to match a selected wetland elevation
adjacent to pond and then the construction of small berms, microtopographic features
and outlet control structures to vary habitat and control flow. The outflow structures will
be stone fitter rip-rap weir structure berm with gravel filters per gravel/rip-rap sediment
basin design installed in conjunction with a low lying berm or a simple sluice gate. This
will allow flexibility to make adjustments and detention of or the removal of excess
Ir
water until a stable level is observed: The 'intent is to create a "low tech" long-term
sustainable water control device that can be field adjusted while the hydrology is being
established, but does not require long term maintenance mechanical devices. This will
enhance the duration of flooding and saturation suitable for the creation of a marsh,
scrub/shrub habitat and bottomland hardwood tree species. The outlet structures will also
serve to spread and dissipate flows from one portion of the site to the other and allow for
grade changes, if necessary. The goal of the mitigation site is to enhance stormwater
treatment, water storage, and create aquatic habitat. Field changes and modifications are
likely during the construction of this site and necessary modifications to ensure success
of the general concept will be submitted for approval to the NCDWQ and USACE.
An bottomland hardwood/scrub/shrub downstream of the project site will serve as the
reference wetland for each type of wetland to provide the wetland hydrology success
criteria far the constructed wetlands. This area was previously delineated and verified by
the USACE as a wetland. This area, receives water from nearby residential development
and natural surface drainage. Currently, hydrophytic vegetation in the reference wetland
include Black willow (Salix nigra), Willow oak (Quercus phellos), Tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and Red maple (Ater rubrum). Various herbaceous
species such as Rushes (Juncus spp.), Sedges (Carex spp.), Smartweed (Polygonurn spp.),
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Duck potato (Sagittaria spp.) and Arrow arum
(Peliandra virginica) are also found in this area.
Water Management Plan
Inputs to the system include precipitation, surface runoff from the site and adjoining
tracts. Groundwater sources are also likely. The objective of the water management plan
is to provide periodically saturated and flooded conditions to the created wetland system.
Once this is accomplished the wetland area with appropriate grading should provide a
variety of diverse and suitable wetland habitats. The wet detention basin will also be used
as a method of controlling peak flows and as a method of diverting flows into the
wetland mitigation areas. Runoff will be conveyed to the wetland as a point discharge.
Regular and low flows from the wet detention pond will be discharged directly to a
forebay, plunge pool or level spreader. The flow will then be diffused in a sheet flow
fashion. Sheet flow will disperse over the wetland mitigation area before following
swales which will distribute flows at a low velocity. The bottom grades of the proposed
wetland will be at a flat gradient of 0 to .S% slope. Water will enter the mitigation site
into a forebay and/or plunge pool and allowed to spread by sheet flow over the area.
Small drainageways and hummocks will be designed to disperse and direct flow and to
create the various hydrological zones. To allow the saturated soil development the outlet
structures designed to withhold at least 12". Excess water will be discharged into the next
mitigation area or out of the mitigation area in a controlled manner. If the water depth is
greater or less than anticipated than the outfall can be adjusted slightly to allow a greater
or lesser volume to be stored Percolation rates are not expected to be rapid due to the
dense subsoils. Provisions have been made allow excess water to runoff into adjacent

channels or wetlands. Small stone filter rock check dams or other obstructions will be
strategically placed to make minor adjustments to drainage flow in order to increase or
decrease duration of flooding or saturation. Structures will be monitored and inspected
regularly throughout the construction period, and also during the proposed vegetative
monitoring periods.
The quantity of water available during the early part of the growing season appears to
indicate that adequate water will be available to support wetland hydrology requirements.
The water budget (Achieving the Correct Hydrology to Support Constructed. Wetlands by
Edgar W. Carbisch, Environmental Concern Inc., 1994) performed for this site indicates
that adequate hydrology is available to support the development of the very different
hydrological conditions required for bottomland hardwoods, scrub/shrub and emergent
conditions. Hydrology for the site will be maintained by channeling water from the
existing stream during storms or other high water producing events. Hydrology will also
be supported by runoff, overland flow, high water table, captured rainfall, and potentially
a spring. Additionally, the outlet from the wetland will be sized, stabilized and placed to
detain drainage and minimize flooding downstream. Normal hydrology will be
considered the percent of time that the upper 12" of soil exhibits inundation or saturation.
Normal precipitation will be defined by "WETS". If precipitation is outside of normal as
defined by "WETS", then the reference site for the particular type of wetland will be
used to establish normal hydrological conditions.
High and low flows entering the wetland mitigation areas will first drain to a pool
or f©rebay to reduce velocity and begin distribution. The outlet from the pool will be
stabilized with a rip-rap/gabion structure. To allow a saturated soil development the
outlet structure is designed to withhold at least 12". Excess water will be discharged into
the next wetland area, as necessary, if cells are developed, in a controlled manner by first
entering an open water forebay. Water will discharge to the wetland over level spreaders
to disperse the flow.
Revegetation of this area will involve planting species that occur in other undisturbed
wetlands that are currently on-site and/or are native in the project vicinity. The planting
schedule will include a diversity of water tolerant hardwood tree, scrub/shrub and
herbaceous species that are also high in wildlife value. The planting plan will also
encourage strata diversity. All plant material will be obtained from local sources and no
more than 20% of each of the listed species will be used to encourage diversity.
Scrub/shrub vegetation will form the transition zones between the emergent cells and the
bottomland hardwood cells. All new plantings will consist of species that are classified
as QBL or FACW.
r
Vegetation will be selected from the following list:
Platanus occidentalis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Diospyros virginiana
Quercus species Taxodium distichum Nyssa sylvatica
Alnus serrulata Cephalanthus occidentalis Sala sericea
Cornus amomum Lindera benzoin Sambucus canadensis
Viburnum dentatum
Areas of occasional inundation
Juncus efjusus Polygonum spp-
Eleocharis spp. Leersia spp,
Carex spp.
Scirpus spp.
Areas of persistent inundation
Juncus of fusus
Peltandra virginica
Pontedaria cordata
Carex spp.
Sagittaria spp.
Acorus calamus
Saururus cernus
Scirpus spp.
Nuphar luteum
Planting will be conducted in the early spring and fall. Specific plant species, quantities
and size will be dependent on ,availability, time of year, and to some extent, cost. A wet
seed mixture will be used to stabilize,any bare soils to provide stabilization and other
wetlands and surface waters will be protected during planting from erosion and
sedimentation. Control structures such as sediment traps, siltation barriers, and/or silt
fence will be used as necessary. Silt fences shall. be removed once the area has been
stabilized. It is expected that natural volunteering of hydrophytic vegetation will also
occur due to the close proximity to other wetland plant seed sources. Monitoring will be
conducted to determine the need for additional planting to maintain the success criteria.
The following Best Management Practices will be employed to minimize impacts to
Jurisdictional Waters. These will include:
a) Siltation Barriers, Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
b) Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect trees
K
c) Methods to prevent short term impacts will be inspected regularly and maintained
during construction of the project.
d) Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan. Best Management Practices will include utilizing siltation
trapping ponds and other erosion control structures where appropriate. Impacts
from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish and aquatic life such as fuels
will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near surface waters.
e) As required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, measures will be
taken to prevent "live" or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters
until the concrete has hardened.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION METHO DOLGY
During the construction phase, all wetlands and streams, as well as the mitigation areas,
will be protected from sedimentation by appropriate sediment and erosion control
features and Best Management Practices. The removed soils will not be used to fill
wetlands unless authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The mitigation areas
will be backfilled to finish grades with suitable topsoil and stabilized as necessary to
restore the hydrological planting zone.
In addition to the planted vegetation, the mitigation area may be stabilized with grasses
or ather herbaceous materials for at least one growing season to observe hydrological and
soil development, as well as vegetation that may be volunteering or inappropriately
invading.
Soils shall be topsoil or stockpiled suitable wetland soils with a minimum of 40%
organic content. Soils shall be spread and compacted to 90%. No more than one foot of
topsoil shall be spread and adequately compacted as a planting medium throughout the
mitigation sites. Manipulation of soil depth will be required to for microtopographic
features in the mitigation cells. Field modifications will be required based on actual site
conditions.
Eighteen inches to two feet of topsoil. and shall be spread and adequately compacted as a
planting medium throughout the mitigation cell. Note that excavation in the proposed
wetland areas should be below finish grade prior to placement of topsoil. Before
placement of the topsoil, the subgrade and hydrological conditions must be assessed.
Manipulation of soil depth will be required to create micro topography within mitigation
cell. Field modifications may be required based on actual site conditions.
The wetland mitigation areas shall be stabilized with grasses or other herbaceous
materials for at least one growing season to observe hydrological, soil development and
vegetation which is volunteering. Adjustments may then be made as required to the water
C
control structures, spillways, and grading as required. Installation of the wetland
materials should not take place until the site's hydrology has stabilized and discharge
structures have been adjusted as necessary.
The entire mitigation cell shall be completely impounded to fully saturate soils prior to
adjusting discharge structures and establishing hydrological zones. Watering to maintain
mist soils throughout all elevations may be necessary during the first growing season.
6.4 PLANTING
Planting zones are based on progressive toleration of saturated soil conditions.
AB - Transitional Species, and species which tolerate minimum
duration of soil saturation
C/l) - Saturation - Tolerant tree species
For fed Zone - Tree l'luntdng Schedule
* No more than 20% of the trees required to be installed shall be of one species to create diversity. Frees
shall be located in a naturalistic pattern. The minimum sine shall be 1 yn hare rgaa seedlings. The laze
sg,necified hdow is ormended to increase lurvivability. Additional or alternate selections may be
necessary based on availability, site specific data, and cost factors. All of the listed species shall be be utilized
unless approved otherwise.
Zone 5&nfific blame Si ? C edition Spacing
Common Name

A/B Diospyros virginiana min. I year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Persimmon
CAI) Frax. pennsylvanica min. I year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Green Ash
C/D Nyssa sylvatica min. 1 year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Blackgurn
C/D Quercus lyrata min. 1 year bare root seedling 9' Can Center
Overcup Oak
A/B Quercus rnichauxii min. I year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Swamp Chestnut Oak
A/B Quercus phellos min. I year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Willow Oak
A/B Quereus slaumardii min. P year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Shumard's Oak.
C/D Taxodiumt distichum min. I year bare root seedling 9' On Center
Baldcypress
The owner may request the additional installation of acorns of acceptable oak species to enhance the
overall vegetation success These shall be planted in designated locations as directed by file owners
representative planner throughout the proposed nutigafion sites.
Scrub Shrub Planting Zane Schedule
Ceph. occidentalis Button Bush 14" - 18" Plants 6-7 O/C
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 14" - 18" Plants 6-7 O/C
Betula nigra River Birch 14" - 18" Plants 6-T O/C
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 14" - 18" Plants 6-7 O/C
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 1.4" -18" Plants 6-7 O/C
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 14". - 18" Plants 6-7 O/C
Others that are. approved
** No more than 20% of the scrub/shrub materials required to be installed shall be of one species to create
diversity and shall be located in a pattern and directed by the planner. The minimum size shalt be ivr.
° i Additional or
alternate selections may be necessary based on availability, site specific data, and cost factors. At least six
varieties shall be utilized.
.emergent Zone Schedule
fttan call amc Comma Name SW Notes
RushWSedaes*
Juncus effusus Smooth Needle Rush 2 yr. peat pot Y O/C.
Scirp. americanus Common Three Square 2 yr. peat pot , T O/C.
Acoris calamus Sweet Flag 2 yr. peat pot Y O/C.
* Planting shall be in naturalistic / random clumps to encourage diversity. Size at planting and variety may
vary based on availability, cost, and aesthetic objectives. Equal proportions shall be utilized. Final layout of
clusters to be field determined based on final surface and ponding conditions.
5ha11QW W= p'lants'"
Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum 2 yr, peat pot YO/C.
Sagitaria latifolia Duck Potato 2 yr: peat pot Y O/C.
Saururus cernus Lizard's Tail 2 yr. peat pot 3' O/C,
Nuphar luteurn Spatterdock 2 yr. peat pot Y O/C.
* Planting shall be in naturalistic / random clumps to encourage diversity. Size at planting and variety may
vary based on availability, cost, and aesthetic objectives. Equal proportions shall be utilized. Final layout of
clusters to be field determined based on final surface and ponding conditions.
Survival rates of seeding, roots, and/or individual plants will be explored for each species selected based on
availability, site specific data, and cost factors. All new plantings will consist FACW and OBL species.
Planting will be conducted in the spring and the fall. Wetland seed mix will be utilized in order to provide
temporary stabilization during the summer and winter months or until planting tunes become available.
Seeifing Specificallon for Herbaceous and Cover Crop in Netland Mitigation Sites
zoos i _ wmmna ? in ?pgradly ..mr.ga soffs or subject to occasional and brief inundation
Data Tx= Hats
April 1- Jul. 15 Red Top Grass
5martweed
7 lbs/acre
20 N /acre
Jul. 16 - Sept. 1 Temporary Crop
Jap. Millet or Sorghum 20 lbs /acre
(to be followed by permanent mixture)
Sept. 2 - Nov. 1 Smartweed
Red Top Grass
20 lbs /acre
7 lbs/acre
Nov. 1 - March 31 Temporary Crop 40 lbs /acre
Wheat or Winter Rye
(to be followed by permanent mixture)
The following species may be substituted:
Bideas connata (Beggar's Tick) and other Biden's species
Leersia oryzoides (Bice Cutgrass)
- Panicum viratum (Switchgrass)
- Peltandra virginica (Arrow Aram)
ng Instructions
t
1) Seed in the dry period
2) use of a filler, such as sand to dilute the seed to ensure uniform ground coverage when broadcasting
3) tree and shrub planting should be completed first before seeding
4) Pure live seed shall be specified and approved prior to planting.
Herbaceous species may with a wetland seed mix which will result in a coverage of at least 100 stems per
square meter upon germination. Subsitutions may be permitted with approval. Other native asses or
AnnuWs ma be selgskd. NQ f
slopes 3xithin Mitigation Area rather than acmaials to allaw natural
sucession-l `_a-Deren nialis,waaired firer erosion control than a mixture shalt be selected thAt allaws
volunjeeri
General Performance SPeCOCOtrons For Planting Plan
1) Vehicular and pedestrian access to the sites shall be designated by the owner.
2) Work, tools, plants, and equipment shall be sufficient to provide the quality of
work required and the proper rate of progress.
3) The existence and location of underground utilities will. be investigated and
verified in the field before starting work. Excavation in the vicinity of existing structure
and utilities shall be carefully done by hand..
4) All work shown described and/or fairly implied shall be fi=shed to provide a
complete job.
S) The contractor shall minimize soil erosion, siltation, water pollution, and air
pollution caused by these operations and comply with all applicable regulations.
b) If it is necessary to interrupt existing natural surface drainage patterns the
Contractor shall take the necessary measures to protect and preserve the natural drainage
way or to provide temporary drainage routing until the natural drainage pattern can be
restored.
7) The owner may temporarily suspend work when satisfactory results cannot be
obtained due to weather conditions or unfavorable site conditions.
8) Individual trees or clusters of trees on the site shall remain undisturbed unless
directed by owner.
9) All planting material shall. meet or exceed the specifications of Federal, State and
local laws requiring inspection for disease and insect control.
10) Tree shall be free of damage to bark, broken branches or roots, and loss of natural
shape. TreesL shall be protected during storage and from extreme temperatures and other
adverse conditions.
11) If planting is delayed all stock shall be set in shade protected from the weather,
and roots shall be kept moist.
12) If conditions detrimental to plant growth are encountered such as rubble fill,
adverse drainage conditions, or obstructions, notify owner before planting. Failure to
notify does not void warranty.
13) Workmanship shall be warranted for a period of one growing season at no cost to
the owner after date of acceptance against defects including death and unhealthy natural
growth, except for defects resulting from neglect by Owner, abuse or damage by others,
or unusual phenomena or incidents which are beyond the Contractor's control.
14) Remove and replace trees found to be dead or in unhealthy condition due to
contractor's neglect, abuse or damage during warranty period. Make replacements during
growing season following end of warranty period. Replace trees that are in doubtful
condition at the end of warranty period. Replacement plants shall match healthy plants of
same size planted.
15) Except when stated otherwise specifications for measurements, quality and grade
refer to USA Standards for Nursery Stock or with national industry standards and
American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANN), as applicable. All plants shall be nursery
grown unless specifically approved by the owner. If the specific stock is not reasonably
obtainable, then the contractor shall submit a proposal for use of a substitute.
16) Plants specified shall be used unless sufficient evidence is submitted in writing to
the Owner indicating plant is unavailable. If alternate plant material is used it must be
utilized for the entire quantity of original material unless prior approval of Owner is
obtained,
17) All plant material is to be purchased from a source that has grown proposed stock
within the climatic zone of the project, unless otherwise approved.
18) Plant Schedule » Plant materials and components of work have been categorized
and listed on planting plan. Other materials may be necessary to complete components of
work and/or to complete the entire job, and shall be directed by owner.
19) Quantity Adjustments: Should materials in excess of quantities estimated be
required, in opinion of owner, Contractor shall provide extras at Contract unit prices:
should quantities less than estimated be required, similarly credits shall be given to
Owner at Contract unit prices. Contractor shall not install extra or omit excess materials
unless authorized in writing by Owner.
General Planting Procedures
a) Pre-planting Care: Protect plants from damage by sun, wind, drought, and injurious
conditions.
b) Plant under favorable weather conditions
c) Layout of Zones: Control Lines and reference points will be furnished by the owner.
The Contractor will be. responsible for layout of all zone boundaries and all
measurements. Finished layout of zones shall be approved prior to planting.
d) Plant Locations: Plants shall be placed in their respective zones and correct quantities
as indicated on the plan. Exact locations of individual plant specimens will not be given.
Owner or owner's representative shall be present during critical planting layout or
planting periods as determined by the owner to approve locations of plants in field.
Contractor shall make reasonable adjustments of plant locations as recommended by
owner's representative.
e) Obstructions at or below grade shall be removed where possible; obstructions such as
functioning utilities or objects too massive to be removed with a tractor mounted
backhoe will require plant relocations as directed by the Owner. Report overhead
interference such as wires, etc. to the Owner and relocate plantings as directed.
Contractor shall familiarize himself with the location of all underground and above
ground improvements during the installation operations. Contractor shall repair or
replace at contractor's sole expense, improvements damaged by his installation
operations.
f) Unless stated otherwise on plans, excavate pits with vertical sides to six inches (6")
deeper than depth of container or burlapped ball; make pit diameter two feet greater than
container or burlapped ball. Remove excavated soil, if unsuitable for back-fill from site.
g) Remove container from plant and lightly scarify roots in several places before
placement. If B&B, unfasten and pull burlap back to expose upper third of ball after
placement.
h) Unless stated otherwise on plans, backfill remaining hole with original soil, compact
lightly. Soak area around trunk thoroughly with water soon after planting, unless soil is
saturated or inundated at time of planting. After settlement; lightly compact backfill area
and maintain pre-existing grade conditions.
i) Perform minor pruning of plants to remove any growth damaged during handling and
root loss.
j) Each plant shall be of proper type, etc. properly installed and maintained in good
health. Final observation of work shall be made by the owner once all proposed stock has
been planted. Ariy plant found not to be in a healthy condition shall be replaced and
replanted by the Contractor with a plant of the same species and size originally specified.
k) Bare Root trees shall be installed per as recommended by nursery or the following:
- Spread seedling bags out to minimize heat build-up
- repair bag if ripped
- do not expose seedlings to wind to prevent drying
- do not expose seedling bags to the sun
- do not allow seedlings to freeze
- verify with nursery if root pruning is required
- Carry seedlings in a planting bag or bucket; do not let them dry out
- Plant seedlings as soon as possible after arrival.
- Store in refrigerated unit between 34 and 36 degrees Fahrenheit
Planting Bare Root Seedling,
1. Insert the dibble at an angle and push upright to open the planting hole.
2. Place seedling gently into the hole and pull up slightly to ensure that the roots are
oriented downward. This will prevent J and U- rooting.
3. Check seedling depth. The root collar (where the uppermost roots join the stem)
should be slightly more than one inch below the soil surface.
4. Insert the dibble about two inches behind the seedling and pull the handle back to
close the bottom of the hole around the roots.
5. Push the dibble handle forward to close the top of the hole.
6. Remove the dibble and close the second hole with your heel.
7. Gently firm the soil around the seedling with your foot.
* Care should be taken to avoid air pockets below root mass.
During planting wetlands and surface waters will be protected from erosion and
sedimentation. Control structures such as sedimentation traps, siltation barriers, and/or at
a minimum silt fence will be utilized as necessary.
Seed Bed Preparation and Seeding Specifications
1. Soil in wetland areas to be seeded or planted shall be ripped to at a 6" depth. Total
seedbed prepared depth shall be 6" to 8" deep. No additional soil or earth moving
equipment shall be used in jurisdictional wetland areas unless authorized by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
2. Loose rocks, roots and other obstructions shall be removed from the surface so they
will not interfere with establishment and maintenance of vegetation. Surface for final
seedbed preparation shall be reasonably smooth.
3. Provide agricultural lime at rate required to bring acidity to slightly acid - pH 6
4. Lime and fertilizer shall be applied uniformly and mixed with the soil during seedbed
preparation. Important - Fertilizer, lime, and other agricultural chemicals shall not be
used flooded, saturated, or inundated wetland areas.
5. Apply 10-20-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs/1000 s.f.
6. Apply 10-10-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs/1000 s.f for temporary
covers. In addition, provide 15 lbs/1000s.f of superphosphate.
7. Seed in accordance with the following schedule and application rates:
8. Temporary crops must be incorporated into the soil prior to seeding of permanent
mixtures. Temporary crops must be mowed at proper time to prevent seed heads from
maturing.
9. Mulch shall be applied at the rate of 75 to 100 lbs/ 1000 S.K. Mulch shall be heavy
during January-March period.
Fertilization - Herbaceous and Woody Plant Species
1) Use Osmacote fertilizer or approved equal. For spring planting, use 18-6-12, eight to nine month release.
For winter and fall planting, use 1.8-5-11, twelve to fourteen month release.
2) If planting is under water, use Agriform 20-10-5 two year release 10 gram planting tablets.
3) Fertilize at time of planting
Recommended Quantities of Fertilizer for various Herbaceous Plant Materials (Garbisch),
Dormant propagule 15 grams Osmacote or 1 ea. 20-10-5 l Og Agriform tablet
growing bareroot 15 grams Osmacote or 1 ea. 20-10-5 lOg Agriform tablet
container/fiber pot 30 grams Osmacote or 3 ea. 20-10-5 l Og Agriform tablet
plug (seedling) 1.5 grams Osmacote or 1 ea. 20-10-5 1Og Agriform tablet
plug (collection) 30 grams Osmacote or 3 ea. 20-10-5 l Og Agriform tablet
Recommended. Quantities of Fertilizer for various Woody Species (Garbisch)
1 quart container 30 grams Osmacote
1 gallon container90 grams Osmacote or
* 30 additional grams for each additional gallon
plug (seedling) 15 grams Osmacote
or 20-10-5 1Og Agriform/Manufacturer rate
20-10-5 l Og Agriform/Manufacturer rate
or 1 ea. 20-10-5 1Og Agriform tablet
7.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the wetland creation areas will be performed to evaluate the mitigation
sites relative to the success criteria. Annual reports will be prepared which summarizes
the data collected in the field and notes trends. Photographs at fixed stations will be
taken to document the trends and changes occurring at the sites. These reports will be
furnished to the USACE and the NCDWQ.
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring
Two sample plots for each vegetation community will be identified. Each sample plot
will represent a 50' by 50' area. A permanent sample plot location will then be identified
for this site. An observation plot will be established with a 30' radius that will allow
recording of the number and species of each surviving woody stein and the percent aerial
cover of the three most dominant species. Within the 30' radius area, a 10' radius
representative sample plot will be established to record the dominant herbaceous species
and percent aerial coverage.
Mitigation sites will be monitored bi-annually during March/April and again in
August/September to measure survival rate, species diversity, and growth as well as to
identify any problems such as upland or invasive wetland species. Invasive species
removal will be as needed and will include the removal of such plants as honeysuckle,
poison ivy, blackberry, rose, kudzu and privet.
7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Successful bottomland hardwood mitigation will be when at least 60% or 320 woody
stems per acre are surviving for three consecutive years. A minimum of 288 woody stems
per acre must be surviving in the fourth year, and a minimum of 259 trees must be
surviving in the fifth year. Successful scrub/shrub mitigation will require 60%0 or 600
woody stems per acre surviving for five consecutive years or 75% aerial coverage.
Emergent mitigation will require 75% aerial coverage. It is expected that if these criteria
are not met, the site will be considered unsuccessful and maintenance will be needed to
provide the required quantity. A five (5) year monitoring program will be conducted for
the bottomland hardwood, scrub/shrub, and herbaceous communities or until the success
criteria is met.
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
Monitoring wells used to evaluate hydrological conditions. Monitoring wells will be
designed, improved and placed in accordance with the specifications in the USACE,
Installing Monitoring Wells/piezometers in wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-1A-3.1,
August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of 24" below final grade. The
wells will be placed in vegetation sampling plots or transects to provide representative
coverage within each of the wetland system types. Hydrological sampling will be
performed for wetland type and reference location throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria. If feasible, a continuous
monitoring well be utilized. It will be observed. on a weekly or twice per week or as
needed basis for at least the first year in order to establish a record of the hydrology
throughout the year. A minimum of one well will be established for each of the created
wetlands.
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
Saturation or inundation for at least 12.5% of the growing season at lower landscape
positions during average climatic conditions is the target hydrological characteristic. If
wetland parameters are marginal, USACE personnel will be consulted to determine the
jurisdictional extent in transition areas. The data collected during the monitoring period
will be used to evaluate the success of the mitigation sites. The success criteria are as
follows:
• Observed or recorded evidence of soil saturation within 12" of the
surface for a minimum of 5% of the growing season.
7.5 Contingency Plan
These vegetative, soil. and hydrological characteristics must be met to determine the
success of the wetland mitigation. If the mitigation is determined to be unsuccessful, one
or more of the following contingency plans will be implemented.
• Selected reinstallation of vegetation or other maintenance (thinning or
removal).
• Extended monitoring periods.
• Hydrological modifications or manipulation, and/or
• Off-site mitigation sites, and/or
• An acceptable alternative form of mitigation.
7.6 Report Submittal
An "as-built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by
community type and sample plot locations will be provided after the completion of
planting. A review of the actual design, densities, and quantities will. also be included.
These will be provided within 60 days of the completion of the planting. Reports will
document sample plot locations along with representative photographs illustrating site
conditions.
Annual monitoring reports will include:
Species and quantity of each surviving woody stem in the plot areas,
• Estimated percent aerial cover of the dominant species,
• Representative photographs,
• Depth of water table during the monitoring period, and
• Hydric soil observations and any other hydrological characteristics.
• Explanations of problems and resolutions
Field data will be recorded on a monitoring data form and submitted along with
photographs in an annual report. Vegetation monitoring will occur in August and
September of each year. This will be submitted to the USACE and the NCDWQ within
60 days of the site monitoring.
After the fifth year of monitoring or until all success criteria are met, a Final As Built
Report will be provided for review and discussion regarding compliance of the project
with conditions outlined in the Permit and to determine if further monitoring or
modifications are required. The As Built Report will be submitted within 60 days of the
mitigation site completion and serves as official. notice of completion of mitigation
construction. The report will include:
9.0 PROTECTION FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT'
Upon completion of construction of the mitigation sites as - built drawings will be
prepared. The survey will include:
- boundary of each area
- finish grades
- location of monitoring wells and sample plots
- drainage control features
- Other significant information, as required
The created wetlands will be protected in perpetuity from future impacts by the applicant
or by a group designated by the applicant for this purpose. Development of these areas
will be deed restricted. Restrictive covenants and legal descriptions will be developed for
approval by the USACE and/or NCDWQ and will include the following information:
- That the area shall remain in its natural condition in perpetuity
- Acreage of wetlands
- Prohibition of the placement of utilities, filling, dredging, construction, or other
activities.
- A permanent easement for the purpose of constructing, monitoring, and
maintaining the mitigation area and preserved wetlands.
- Obligations if monitoring indicates that the area has not met the success criteria
Mitigation - Wetland Preservation
In addition to the required wetland mitigation, the owner of the property will preserve 17
acres of Upland Depression Swamp Forest and Xeric Hadpan Forest buffers. also known
as the Providence Flats. These were identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program. These areas are important to the Natural Heritage of Mecklenburg County
according to Dr. James Matthews of the Habitat Assessment Restoration Program. They
occur in large areas of south, west, and northwest Mecklenburg County especially in
conjunction with Iredell soils. Mature xeric as well. as mesic hardpan forests have been
identified.
According to the Natural Heritage Program they are characterized by drainage that is
hindered by a clay hardpan. They are Palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded or
saturated. The forest canopy is dominated by mature Quercus phellos. Other trees that
may be present include Q. michauxii, Carya ovata and Carya carolinae-septentrionalis.
Shrubs are usually sparse and may include Vaccinium fuscatum, Ilex decidua, and
Viburnum dentatum. Typical herbs include Carex species, and Climacium and Spagnum
lescurii (sphagnum moss). These plant communities, especially where less disturbed and
mature are becoming less and less common in the area. These communities are generally
stable climaxes, maintained by their hydrology, however they may be susceptible to
disturbance caused by unusually prolonged flooding or by drought. Many of the sites hold
enough standing water seasonally and are important breeding sites for amphibians. They
provide feeding grounds for buds of prey; are important feeding grounds for migratory
birds such as the American woodcock and waterfowl. During a site visit a great blue
heron was observed feeding in the shallow inundated areas. Unstable and deteriorating
situations are often inadvertently created by adjacent urban development and
parcelization. Large areas of these wetland habitats have already been destroyed, or are
under pressure from encroaching development. They are often mistaken as isolated or not
identified by unsuspecting landowners or design professionals. There are currently no
required buffers to protect these rare and sensitive communities. Therefore they highly
susceptible to inadvertent, and secondary impacts. The preserved wetlands will be
protected by a conservation easement and managed by a group designated by the owner
for this purpose, such as the Catawba Lands Conservancy. A meeting was held with Mark
Cantrell of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and representatives of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission at the proposed preservation site in May, 1999, as well as
the subject development site. Based. on their review, it was apparent that these agencies
are enthusiastic about the potential of preserving large areas of these sensitive sites as
mitigation for the loss of a much smaller and vulnerable wetland area on the subject
development site.
Construction Schedule
Excavate unauthorized fill in wetlands and
floodway %
Install and Maintain Sedimentation and
Erosion Control
Staking, Survey; Detailing of Stream
Wetland Cells;
Grading of Wetland Areas and restoration
of stream
15 - 60 days after issuance
15 days after issuance
- 60 days after issuance
60 - 90 days after issuance
Observe Hydrology of Reference Area
Research plant availability and
costs
90 days - 180 days
upon issuance
Planting (may vary based on species)
and fine grading - seasonally dependent
(planting of mitigation areas will occur during the late fall and winter following the
establishment of hydrology within cells)
Monitoring - 180 after issuance
Monitoring will begin when planting of the is completed and continue semi-annually for
5 years. Mitigation areas will be monitored bi-annually during March/April and
August/September to measure survival rate, species diversity, growth. First monitoring
report will be conducted no later than March/April, 2001, provided a permit has been
issued by April 2000.
Changes in the planting schedule may be required due to hydrological factors such as site
and weather conditions. If planting is delayed then the soil will be stabilized with an
annual wetland grass mixture until. suitable hydrology has been established for planting.
Changes in the schedule will. be reported to the USACE and NCDWQ for review and
approval. Plants that volunteer will be evaluated as to there suitability with the mitigation
plan to determine if they should be removed, remain or be relocated.
CONCLUSION
The 52 acre development will provide important economic benefits to the region. Based
on the value of the jurisdictional waters and wetlands on this site and with respect to the
local neighborhoods, the developer has chosen to balance the site's economic viability
with its environmental value and permitability. The goal of the proposed storrnwater
treatment and mitigation measures is to help balance the environmental consequences of
this development by restoring and creating beneficial wetland or riparian habitat and
enhancing and preserving the Jurisdictional Waters of the U. S. remaining on the site. The
mitigation sites will be preserved by the applicant or by a group designated by the owner
for this purpose. They will be managed as a wetland system of high value.
S
I
PINEVILLE
N
tlJ
t0
U
Z
Q
W
U
W
O
a
WEDDINGTON
Gs
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Providence Road 'at 1485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #
1-485/NC 1 6 )N TERC;HANGE EXIT 57" 1000
U
Z
D
W
U
Z
W
Q
Q
CL
LOCATION MAP
Providence Road at I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #

?
Y? q
LLI
' F LLJ
? ? ? L ,. ,fie s? /? ? ..y, ?.? t'S .`t ?s ,e

kAR

W,. t1T ?? t.a
.
Ali r Y
?

?i
?. _ "
.'' '?
:::.l f
1.?\

U
.? ?
a? ?
? ?
?, o
U
,,r,
? ?
?"'.e ??
? ?.? ?,
Q ? c a
' p °., ? a ?
?
?
v aj ? ? ?
?:? ° ?? A
?
?f?UUQ
^?
F" ' \ ??

O
to
F
? .a
Lij
O
W
U
z
w
0
0
ly-
a
IM/a ,ooz - (]VON 3ON3alA0?d?
._iy

4 ?
_ D
C7 [D
Q
Q CD
4
W Q
Z ?i

? O O

3 c,

?? ?, p v DO

v a
w O.
W
I?i O C? ^? y
Y
v A
W tS+ U

H
0
'y
LAN-dVOI
:l 33N3a1AOUd
nn/a ooa - avoa 3; 9 JIAOad
LNI
p
¢
CL
z
CCO
G
O la
v
w
z
z u?
m
6?? v
pf
z
_ to

LLI
s

LL
O

LU

da 0.
U ¢
m
Z
a
W

L 4 Q?
lj ? 'Q G
Z ? x

? a
CL

1
Ul.

o
z? ?
M
QL U

? 4

pROVlDE??E Rl?
(200' (t/??)
'? a a
3
41

o,?r a-
$x`o
N
3
o p
f W
to O

o
o?

. g
i
8
°u
o y
8

s
?c

?
a $a
$
? qp
p??
g
888Q
:Y ?
$ Q

h
z
.3Nv-_ ? --

c
? /

P

V
n ?

IS Q
1
-1
®
v
a p(?
1 ^3'
01

? U O 0

45
a
U U A
d
v
Q
O
LU
U
z
LJ
0
O
a
Y
IL
z
O
O
W
z
F-
z
LL
O
z
O
U
w
W
z
?I

SITE PLAN `
Providence Road at 1-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, IBC
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
1l(
4
0

0

LL!
U

0
a m
w
m W

g O U
- m C?
n. w
U1 ¢ Q
U m. m O
a° m Q

d. m
H Q
? 0 Cn
z .1

LU
Q'
LJ Q °
w
C? w
w a
I- -
Q

I
O

Z
O
? ?
Z C
O J
E- z
N O
w a

UJ z
zw o
w F- Q
/
f... f-
N
N
X rj?
W LU
< Q
W
O 3: <
to

O p

cn z
m
n- c
n .
Action I.D. 4
PROVIDENCE RD
r.-ate.,;, Z
? t •? Q
LLI
r
ill li a°? ° °? # rd Z°° °
111
° Z
l
?I W ~ O
?s O O O
P.
t ??°P O
O O O
2
6. 1 l er
7
i; W
li
'i -

Q
U
w
CL
U
l'®•
ti r • •
?4r
- j-
R?
? r
jt 1? o
?? X99 ? ' _ ef, l 1 ' N
?? 111
Z
a
" W

Np?p r • •r
V D
i "°•? ?` r
_

W e ` w?

=m \
z
'
_ U O X99

..
Q
J O
a
U \

.?
J ?,
J Q
1 Z J
t
Z = V
a ?
Qu
a
Q p
\\\`\`? `\ 1 \`,\ Q
\\V\\` O O O
?\ cn Q
w I-
R?\` fn
`?\. \ 2 O U $
L.U
U 1 a' X"
J ? 2 I- O w -!
un w \\ \
L \? LL W
LIJ O 4 J3: 1 N?;Q W
0`p O oQ + 3
v
s \\ m N 0 >
_W
W ZZ
0 015 CL
-J-0 0
\L" 0
•
"V, CL
t- \\ to :?+???\ X
R
-10
VI\
r ,
•
•r

D
W
LL
LL
0
A ?
?' R i

0 \,
X \

\'A

1 \ ,\

m
o N
?c pN grc?
it m W
U rZ Z a¢?
? W ~ ZbUrZU
d
0
r
z
ti
z
O
r
U
V
Y
?m a;
V
z7 O
r
m w N
W
?o
6 W
C?j N
r
Z
gppO?
D
m'U>
3
o

W ?
NI
h W t0 V l
G J M ,
? ?
'1
i
'
UON
JJ>
aNW
1
.1 13
o'
o?
a'
i
w
V
a'
V)
J
O
J 1 d
z;
ox Z
N
C
z
U
J m
3 ?
om
z
zz
V
W ?

m
K .
V ?
Z o
K
? W
i1
.J
? V W
N I Z=
z m$N
2 p 3
4 W V!
v am
W!2 w
V 0 O
Z r
x ?
U N 0

cn O
W

v
>
z
?
Q
W

J z
© o N
7L w
Z p
N
w .
Q _
a
0 r

.; O z
z
Z -
a W
N

0 3 0
M LL
O
T
r p Z W
W
J
z
w fn
W <Z m
m O F

a r
o ZQ W

? J

O R m g O O Q
J W Z
D
O
G = V) Y = W
N ¢J -, vwi
m Z
Z
0
r
o w
w F =) O Z <
MJw W Z 2
Z m a g W
O
m p
r o a °w

W VV)J)
J O Z
O
J d W J
a? av)3za
? N
W
4-
Z
Z
L_0
I?
U
W
A
'
w

?? may.. ? ? V J• / .r
ekl,
o ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION SITE ;1f ° 1
( =v
s p 04 l% v., 650
STREAM MITIGATION SITE -ov en „ '
/ ?rv
ll .•6 fi
0 0.
_ M65
b ??• `b E
It
(jpwa2f 5t'' O
Lak j;
c,, B.ry'1L C 65 C
? c -? O ,• e •¢ 650
o p Q ai -= -
t \'l0 3628 -
J ? .
B
UPLAND DEPRESSION SWAMP FOREST O. ? - - 02
L 'WETLAND PRESERVATION SITE,
s\ _ - x so -?-
C APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 20 ACRES - \?
%
li?IITIGATION SITE I,OCATION/IJSGS PROJECT SITE U
Providence Road at 1485 Property ?? -
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC //r/
Mecklenburg
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
Action I.D. 4
UPLAND DEMSSSION SWAMP r0AEST
sites: Poorly drained upland flats or depressions. Usually on broad upland.
flats but occasionally on high ridge tops.
Soilei Various soils with drainage hindered by a clay hardpan or by shallow
rock. Typical series are Iredell (Typic Hapludalt), Misenheimer (ANquic Dystro-
chrept), Xirksey (Aquic Hapludult), Leakeville (Typic Albaqualf), and Picture
(Abruptic Argiaquoll).
Hydrology: Palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded or saturated.
During dry periods water may be unavailable to plants.because of restricted
rooting depth and because the impermeable layer has kept the subsoil dry.
Vegetation: Forest canopy usually dominated by Quercus phellos or Q. lyrats.
Other trees may be present, including Q. michauxii, Liguldambar styraci.flua,
Acer rubrum, Lirlodendron tullpifere, Hyssa biflora, Quercus b1color, Carya
ovate, and occasional upland trees, particularly Quercus stellata and Carya
caroZinae-septentrronalis. Shrubs are usually sparse. Species may include
Vaccinium fuscatum (atrococcum), v. corymbosum, Cephalanthus ocaldentalls, rlex
decidua, and Viburnum dentatum. Kerbs are usually sparse, with Carex species
being most typical. Other: species include Glyeer1a septentrionalim, Tuncus
effusus, Selaglnella apoda, Spi.ranthes cernua, Eleochoris tenuls, and various
bottomland spring ephemerals such as claytonia virgfnica. The mosses = maci.um
americanum and Sphagnum lescurii are often abundant. In disturbed areas, vines,
primarily Lonicera japonica, Toxi.codendron (Rhus) radlcans, Campsis radicans,
and VitIs rotundifolla, may proliferate.
Dynamics; These communities are generally stable climaxes, maintained by their
hydrology. They may be susceptible to disturbance caused by unusually prolonged %
flooding or by drought.
Range: Scattered throughout the eastern and central Piedmont and possibly the
upper Coastal Plain.
Associations: Typically associated with Xeric Hardpan Forest and Basic oak--
Hickory Forest but may grade into other upland forest types. Sometimes occurs
with Upland Pools.
Distinguishing Features: Upland Depression Swamp Forests are distinguished from
Upland Poole by having a closed tree canopy and a shorter hydroperiod. They are
distinguished from Hillside Seepage Dogs and Low Elevation seeps by having
ponded rain and runoff water rather than seepage, as well as by different
spacias composition. The boundary with surrounding upland communities is the
point at which upland plant species become dominant over wetland species. There
are sometimes substantial tones of mixed domigance.
Variation: The canopy dominants are relatively constant but sites may vary in
associated species and in the lower strata. Differences in soils, particularly
between acidic and circumneutral types, are probably important in determining
composition, as is hydroperiod. Frye (1989), however, found no effect of soil
chemistry on sites on,iredell soils. He noted that the surface horizons were
acidic and that bases in the subsoil were unavailable because of the drynoae
there caused by low permeability. WETLAND PRESERVATION SITE DESCRIPTION
Providence Road at I-485 Property
197 Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #
commwnts: sites which hold enough otandi.ng water seasonally may be important'
brooding sites for amphibians.
Upland Depression Swamp Forests are part of a characteristic suite of
communities on mafic.igneous or metamorphic rock, along with Xeric Hardpan
Forest and Basic Oak--Hickory Forest. The.high base levels in mafic rocks
contribute to the formation of montmorillonite clays which inhibit drainage.
Upland Depression Swamp Forests also form over acidic shales, and occasionally
on harder rocks.
Rare Plant Species: vascular -- Quercus.b,icolor.
Synonymet
Gabbro Depression.
Bottomland hardwoods (in part).
Examples
Fro7sboro Upland Depression Forest, Caswell Game Land, Caswell Co.
Providence Flats Swamp, Mecklenburg Co.
Sadin Upland Depression Swamps, Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery Co.
(Matthews 1979, Wells 1974).
Uwharrie Mafic Rock Area., Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery Co.
South Butner Diabase Swamp, Granville co.
Goshen Gabbro Forest, Granville Co. (LeGrand 1986).
Donnalley Hog site, Chatham Co. (Weakley 1985)..
Meadow Flats, Duke Forest, Orange Co. (Ohmann 1980)
Referencest Frye (1989), LeGrand (1986), Matthews (1979), Ohmann (1980),
Weakley (1985), Wells (1974).
sample Plant Communities:
Quercus phellos.
ouercux .phelloar-Q. lyrata.
Q. lyrato. 4
Carya ovate-Quercua bicolor.
Quercus phellos-Q. bicolor.
Quercus phol3os/Sphagnum leseuril.
HILLSIDE SEEPAGE BOG
sites: Piedmont areas which are constantly saturated by seepage. small areas
on slopes or edges of bottomlands.
Soils: Wet mucky soils. Soils are mapped as Cecil (Typic Hapludult), Colfax
(Acquic Fragiudult), and "mixed alluvial" but undoubtedly represent inclusions in
these map units.
Hydrology: Falustrine, permanently saturated to intermittently dry.
198
ern
HCDEHR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 22, 2000
Memorandum To: File
From: Todd St. John
Subject: Childress-Klein
DWQ 000aT3- 9 y ?r 73
Mecklenburg County
I have reviewed the plans for the stream mitigation and the stormwater pond with
the surrounding wetland mitigation:
1) The stream restoration plan appears to address all of the major requirements of a
stream restoration except for the biological monitoring plan. Dave will likely address
this need soon.
2) The stormwater pond and wetland creation will be redesigned per my conversations
with Len Rindner and Kevin Caldwell. Will wait for new plan. Pond will be moved to
the upper corner of the wetland and will be reconfigured to meet the sizing
requirements.

r?
LEONARD S RINDNER PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Landscape Architecture Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning (704) . 846-0461
February 15, 2000
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Dorney
Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Todd St. John
Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
( 7€
TI. ANDS GROUP
Re: Stream Restor-4tion Plan - Action ID # 199931212 / NCDWO #991173 - ± 51
Acre Site at the Intersection of 1-485, Providence Road and Ballantyne Commons
Parkway (The Promenade)
Dear Sirs:
At the request of Childress Klein, Inc., I am forwarding to you the Stream Assessment
and Restoration Plan for your review and approval. We believe that this plan has
significant long term water quality and habitat value. We are looking forward to
implementing this important and creative mitigation plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require further explanation.
Thanks.
Sincere
eonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Plannin? Consultant
tip y
y
W j6 ?4 W 3Qts.x' \,? G
Q N ' ? `\
X a+'
CL
z
O W
W
O
Q ? ?
Q
° W
U
LU \
to
W
D 1
m _N
M W ?a

.3 !
9 sb
5
C
cn
a
O
a
cry
Z
to
U
W
Z
W
W
tn

W
J
0
0
+I

W
W
L
u

u. ?
Z
m O

W _

~
co Q
O
O

N
W
Q
W

LU
N Q
N W

Z Z
~
O
c
n
c

w
Ct'
F-

Z
0

Q

O

cn
W

LL
J
W
N
M

N r
+I
!°
C
w
O
CL
O
w
a
O
v
W
Z
W
w
a
W
Z
O
U
O
LO
r
NW
Li
Q
W
O
0
N
r
W
J
U
1,
t
R
iR
=i
x
s
1,
t
R
t
iR
=i

Table of Contents
Site Description p.3
Mitigation Summary p,3
Stream Impairment Assessment p,3
Reference Reach Assessment p.7
Restoration Plan P.10
Objectives P.10
Channe l Mo rphology Restoration p.13
Buffer p.13
Monitoring P.14
Figures: P.15
Figure 1. Mitigation Site Location and Watershed P.15
Figure 2a. Station Location Map for Reference Reach p.16
Figure 2b. Station Location Map for Impaired Reach p.17
Figure 2c. Profiles of Existing Channel Conditions P.18
Figure 3. Meander Characteristics Ref. Reach #1. P.19
Figure 4. Riffle and Pool observations p.20
Figure 5. Generalized Flow Restoration Model p.21
Figure 6. Restoration Profiles p.22
Figure 7. Restoration Planform Map p.23
Tables:
Table 1. Rosgen-type Morphologic Parameters for p.24
Reference Reach
Photos: p.25
Plate 1. Impaired Reach p.26
Plate 2. Reference Reach # 1 p.27
Plate 3. Reference Reach # 2 p.28
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.2

Site Description
' This project proposes a stream restoration on a site off of Tom
Short Road in Charlotte, N.C. that has approximately 1400 linear feet of
1 stream channel distributed in a 1st order stream reach. The stream is
impaired from an number of vantage points and is proposed here for
' restoration. The impaired reach is the head water creek to Flat Branch, the
latter draining to Sixmile Creek of the Catawba River The impaired reach is
shown on Figure 1 along with two areas on the creek up and down stream which
' were used to gather and define reference conditions for the restoration.
The impaired reach collects runoff from approximately 195 acres of urbanized
1 land, including commercial, residential, and major transportation corridors.
' Mitigation Summary
' In January and February of 2000 an assessment of the impaired reach
th
t
diti
f
t
l
d
d d
e curren
ream con
was per
orme
to assess
s
ons an
eve
op
appropriate strategies for possible restoration. The assessment indicates
' that the reach is impaired for approximately 1200 linear feet (1352 linear
feet in the proposed restoration model). There are several impairment
' factors. These include: a) channelization (i.e. straightening of the
stream), b) lowered interstorm flow conditions, c) loss of pool area, d)
loss of wooded riparian habitat, e,) potential water quality problems due to
livestock grazing in creek bed. In this mitigation/restoration plan the
causes of impairment are first discussed, then data for the reference
and lastl
the miti
reaches
ation/restoration
lan
,
y
g
p
.
' Stream Impairment Assessment
' Figure 1, 2a and 2b (in appended materials) show the course of the
reach of Flat Branch which is being proposed for restoration. Also in
' Plate 1 there are three photographs of field conditions. Figure 2a and
2b come from a detailed topographic survey done of the property for the
' purposes of this restoration. The segment of the USGS 1:24,000
Weddington topographic sheet containing this tributary is also shown in
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.3

n

H

figure 1. In addition to these sources of information, historical
series of aerial photographs have been reviewed dating back to 1938.
Also, field channel, bed characteristics, vegetation character, and
ground water table conditions were investigated in November, December of
1999 and January and February of 2000. These data are categorically
summarized below.
Evidence for Channelization The reach is two short in length to
have a clear `channelized' appearance on the 1:24,000 topographic sheet.
Aerial photography dating back to 1935 however show this channel in an
open field or agricultural setting with a very linear form. 1/4 of the
channel is slightly arc-shaped along the down-slope end of a small pond
(figure 2b). Here the linear trend of the channel across the open
pasture has been slightly diverted by the earthen dam for the pond.
Inspection of aerial photograph shows that the Six Mile Creek watershed
has many creeks which have not been diverted in wooded land settings,
4
and these consistently show a low, but greater, sinuosity than that seen
here. Having said that, we need to acknowledge that channelization
would have had to occur before 1938.
Field studies on the reference reaches above and below this
section support the argument of past channelization of this central
portion. Both above and below this linear stretch (essentially a
sinuosity of 1.0) the creek has sinuosities of 1.1 to 1.2. Also riffle
and pool data indicate that the central section is dominated by riffles,
which is generally the impact of channelization on stream beds of this
nature since channelization favors grade steepening. Finally, field
assessment show that the central portion has no exposures of bedrock,
again consistent with past channelization..
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.4

1

Flow Conditions The impaired reach of this stream is shown on the
USGS sheet as an intermittent stream. The map was however created after
the channelization of this stream before 1938. It is thus not clear
what the be channelization flow was like. However, both, above and
below this reach, the stream had significant interstorm flow in late
October, November, December, January and February. The impaired reach
was completely dry in October, November, and early December. In
January, and February precipitation has been persistent, and flow has
been noted on all site visits. It is not clear that this reach is truly
intermittent, given this winter's precipitation pattern. There is a
reasonable chance that current conditions on this reach could be deemed
ephemeral if studied over a series of months.
I also see little evidence of baseflow along the reach. In
December a series of holes were augered to determine the position of the
water table under the channelized portion of the stream. Four holes
were dug at locations shown in Figure 4. Ground water while
t
contributing to flow both above and below the channelized reach, is
found approximately 2 feet below the stream bed. The cause of this
condition is a matter of some conjecture. It must be noted, however,
that the channel cross section is 2 to 4 feet less incised in this
section. If one were to have a profile consistent with either the up or
down stream reach, the bed would intercept the water table. This could
indicate that channelization was also accompanied by leveling of the
channel bed to facilitate farming activities. Photos in plate one show
a hummocky stream bed course in the pasture that is maintained to this
day by a herd of horses which favor the channel bed. One must assume
that long term pasture use of this area would have kept the profile
trodden, essentially preventing renewed incision to the water table.
One could also entertain the possibility that the upper and lower
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.5
f'

C'

0

reaches have continued to incise the channel while the pasture was
maintained in a more smooth profile over the years. However, trees of 2-
3' in diameter can be found rooted into the banks of the reach above the
impaired reach which would easily be 50 to 70 years in age. Thus the
most likely cause of this reach being dry is an artificially maintained
profile found conducive to agricultural landuse.
Channel bank and bed conditions. The typical cross section for
the impaired reach is shown in profile #3 of figure 6. The bed
characteristics are shown in figure 4.. While the banks along this reach
are `stable,, grasses dominate the vegetation, and may be a function of
agricultural land management. The bed is dominated by riffles, which
are essentially continuos along its entire length down to the one
culvert crossing below the pond. The dominance of riffles is a direct
consequence of channelization effects on velocity of water flow.
Variable velocity structure in bends of streams create pooling areas
which are absent in this straightened reach. Also channelization
generally increases flow promoting stream degradation which also favors
riffle bed structure. The latter may not be as important in this case
due to the lack of evidence for incision in this reach.
Riparian Characteristics The impaired reach has nothing but
pasture within 50, of both sides of the channel center line.
Summary of Stream Impairment Between the woods that buffers the
creek upstream from the pasture, to the brush/woody fringe that buffer
the bedrock-based reach below the pasture, there are 1100 linear feet of
channel with little aquatic, or riparian habitat value. In addition to
this loss of habitat, the open pasture setting of the stream promotes
direct grazing of live stock in the stream bed. Animal waste was noted
in the stream on all visits to the site. The elevation of this reach 2
feet above the water table is likely an artifact of the channelization
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.6

and pasture setting, and this has likely contributed to diminished
stream flow. When the area is transformed to urban or suburban landuse
in the next few years, one can anticipate that this reach will undergo
additional impairment as incision is renewed without deep rooted bank
vegetation.
Summary of Stream Restoration Goals
The goals of a stream restoration are to reverse or compensate for
the causes and effects of stream impairment. The assessment indicates
impairments include: stream flow, stream structure, and stream aquatic
and riparian habitat. The causes are principally channelization, and
pasture land management practices. However, landuse changes expected in
the near future which would transform landuse to urban categories, can
be expected to have some additional effects which need to be anticipated
in the design of an effective restoration plan. The primary concern
with urbanization is the additional storm flow that may be produced by
the increase in impervious cover in the 200 acres of watershed draining
through this reach. Also, we must be concerned with water quality,
which can be safe guarded to some extent by vegetated buffers.
The objectives of the plan are thus. to: restore channel form, bed
and aquatic habitat; augment interstorm flow, accommodate anticipated
landuse induced changes in the water budget and flow regime, and restore
a riparian wooded conservation buffer to act as a water quality safe
guard and habitat area.
Reference Reach Assessment
In January and February of 2000 data was collected on approximately
500 linear feet of stream above and below the impaired reach to better
characterize morphologic and hydrologic attributes of the watershed and
creek under more natural hydrologic and landuse conditions. The primary
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.7
LII

I

C

data needed to assist in the design of a restoration plan are channel
morphologic parameters, bed characteristics and bank conditions. The
observations on these characteristics are presented in Table 1, in figures
2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4 and 6, and in the photographs presented in plated 2 and 3.
Brief summaries of these findings along with some other observations and
interpretations are discussed below.
Reference Reach Planform A detailed survey of the creek center line
was performed using 20, spacings. This allowed the meander characteristics
of the stream to be calculated from the survey maps. The results of the
survey are shown in the attached figures (e.g. 2a,2b, and 3). The section
below the impaired creek showed the best definition of creek meanders, and
the calculations for the sinuosity and meander wavelength are shown in
figure 3. This section has a sinuosity of 1.1 (approximate a 10% increase
in channel length over valley length), and an average meander wavelength of,*
441. The impaired reach essentially has a sinuosity of 1. with no
significant bends. The reach above the pasture has a slightly lower
sinuosity than the reach below the pasture, but also has a lower valley
grade. Of the two reference reaches the map data for the creek planform
detail was better in the lower reach, and this data is reported and used for
the restoration design.
It is interesting to note that the stream grade systematically
decreases as one progresses upstream. In the lower reach the grade is
approximately .95% in the pasture the grade is .81%, and in the reach above
the pasture it is close to .7%. Had the grade before channelization been
consistent across the three areas, one would expect the grade of the
channelized section to be steeper than either the areas below or above. In
this case it appears that a ledge of resistant bedrock exposed below the
pasture has kept the creek from headward degradation, and caused the stream
areas above this reach to have a local baselevel, the latter akin to
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.8

sealevel, causing the lowering of the grade of the stream. Under natural
conditions (i.e. without channelization) we would have expected the lower
' grade of .7% to have continued across the pasture up to the start of the
bedrock exposures. Thus in the design plan below,, attempt to match tYTe
upper channel'grade not the. grade in the reach below the stream. This
requires a sinuosity. of .approximately, 1.-2?, wh3oh is slightly •hgher_ than
z
seen in ,•the:xe:ach below ::the pas"cure. It is however common that sinuosity
' increases as one approaches a baselevel.
Channel Profile and Flow Regime The reach above the pasture has a
' more nature riparian character, and was chosen for collection of cross
section or profile data. One profile for an inflection point, and one
' profile for a meander bend were taken out to 50' both sides of the creek.
These profiles are shown in figure 2c, along with a profile for the impaired
' reach segment. The profiles also show the bankfull stage level. :As is,,,
commonly the case for first order tributaries, the bankfull stage is
' approximately 1/2 the height,-of the. channel giving a;2 ••xx-bankfull
stage near the edge-of.;-the bank. This means that the `floodprone' width can
1 ?nh
?` be very different depending on the value chosen for the bankfull stage.
ere are only,y,two••,wel developed, inner berms in the reference reaches,,., and
bothx,rnd cate°,?'a°bankfull height cf-22". This results in a bank full width

u

1

of 9 to 111, a flood prone width of 20 -29' a width to depth ratio of 9 to
11, and an average depth of 110.
Bank Conditions Bank conditions are largely stable throughout both
reference reach areas. This is likely in part reflects the low sinuosity of
the creek which has kept bank toe undercutting to a minimum. Bank area
steeper than 1:1 show some signs of moderate erosion by combined
undercutting and surface sloughing of material. Bank slopes more gradual
than 1:1 are covered by multiyear plant/moss communities. Bank heights vary
from 3 to 5 feet, but show systematic decline towards the pasture from
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.9

' upstream, and some increase down stream, as if current conditions have to
some extent been force to accommodate conditions in the impaired section.
' Channel Bed Characteristics The reach above the pasture provided a
' better access for mapping and characterizing the channel bed. The base of
the channel in both the upper and lower reference reaches are 3 to 5 feet in
' width, with interstorm flow generally restricted to 2 to 3 feet of this
width. The upper reach has a riffle and pool structure largely defined by
' debris accumulations rather than meander bends. The lower reach which was
not mapped in detail, has numerous bedrock nickpoints which define small
' cascade, riffle, and pool characteristics. The upper reach had no bed rock
nickpoints over the 300, used for characterization. The data for the riffle
' and pools for the upper reference reach are shown in figure 4. This data
shows that there are'more pool areas than riffles,'Iwitha-ratio of,-2.;:295% The
' ra
ool s
a
e
acin
is 17 feet
It is:
common that the `s
acin
i
g
p
g
.
ve
p
;
p
g
s
' approximately l/2 meander wavelength* However, due to low sinuosity it is
unlikely that these characteristics are defined by stream planform. The

' restoration plan will have to incorporate some in oh ;,,pool enhancement
structures to initially play `the?"role formed'by woody.debris..,blockage. It is
' also possible that this riffle:pool character can change with passing storms
as this material is relocated in the channel. Below this reach, bed rock
' nickpoints are found on a spacing ofz,15,;;fo 40' which would create a slig4tly
more permanent bed:,structure to the riffles and pools.

Restoration Plan

Objectives
' As stated above the objectives of the plan are to: restore channel
form, bed and aquatic habitat; augment interstorm flow, accommodate
' anticipated landuse induced changes in the water budget and flow regime, and
1
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.10

u

I,
restore a riparian wooded conservation buffer to act as a water quality,safe,.
guard and habitat area.
Table 1 outlines the basic channel morphologic parameters which are to
incorporated into the design. For reasons discussed above, it is not logical
to try to match conditions in the reference reach areas, because the
tributary shows localized adjustments along the three reaches which are
caused by a zone of resistant bedrock exposed in the reach below the
impaired reach. Conditions listed for restoration represent estimates of
conditions which likely existed prior to channelization in this area. Thus
aspects such as bank heights, sinuosity, and stream grade vary from
conditions observed in the reference reaches, but in a rational manner
calculated or estimated to bring the stream.back to a nature setting.
The flow regime is more difficult to restore. It has been argued that
prior to channelization the reach likely was incised an additional 1 to 2
feet, resulting in 2 to 3' banks rather than the current 1 to 1.5' banks
seen today. This would have brought the base of the creek close to the
4
level of the current water table. Unfortunately, due to anticipated
urbanization in this watershed we can expect additional declines in the
regional water table, as storm flow increases with impervious cover. This
essentially is a loss of ground water recharge. This means that the total
area of intermittent stream flow will increase within the urbanizing
watershed. Trenching this stream down to the water table is not likely to
be a successful approach to solving the flow deficiency. As an alternative
to this a model has been developed to supplant the declining baseflow
contributions with interflow from riparian storm detention hollows. These
structures are shown in figure 7 (folded map insert). The structures are
designed for wooded habitat, but are dammed from the creek to keep on
average approximately 1/2 acre feet of water in storage. This water will
within a few hours sink to a sub-detention area interflow zone where it will
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.11

u

then laterally seem for 2 to 5 days across a semi-permeable levee into the
creek. The general hydrologic model for this design is shown in figure 5.
The detention areas also are design to capture storm overbank storage at a
stage 4 inches below bankfull, which will help with stabilization of banks,
a provide for additional storage to accommodate increase storm flow in the
watershed from future urbanization.
The design calls for channel stabilization using either a small zone
of toe refusal rip rap, or a fiber coil staked to the bottom of the sides of
each bank. Due to the low sinuosity, rip rap, and additional erosion
control in meander areas may not be needed. Banks shown situated between
detention areas and the stream will be composed of a mix of rip rap with
loam, mixed to maintain grain to grain support within the rip rap size
range, but with sufficient soil content for woody riparian vegetation. The
permeability of this mix needs to be calculated within a water budget model
analysis to produce interstorm flow contributions to the creek which will
yield reasonable extensions of interstorm flow. A reasonable goal would be
4
to maintain flow for 70% of the interstorm periods, as defined by a I inch
storm with a 1 week separation. Detention storage should be sufficient in
this design plan to yield approximately 30-35 gal/minute over a 3 to 5 day
period. This is augmentation to existing interflow. Prior to preparation of
the engineering plans this water budget analysis will have to be performed
to determine appropriate physical and hydraulic properties of the permeable
liner and levees for the detention areas. The excess fill from the
detention cells will be used to make low relief mounds and to construct the
low (11) levees and berms. It should be noted that these are very low
relief structures, which will not diminish habitat characteristics. It may
be that water budgets will allow wetland conditions to be created in these
areas. However, it is not a performance goal, as there are two many areas
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.12

of uncertainty to accurately predict growing season water budgets in these
area.
Channel Morphology Restoration

The channel meanders and profiles are shown in figures 7 and 6. The
restored length of the impaired reach is 1352, from is current 11001,
producing a stream grade of .71% which approximates the grade in the upper
reference reach. The cross section has similar bankfull area (11 sq.ft.).
The major difference is the channel above the impaired reach has a high bank
essentially two times the height of the bankfull stage. This high bank is
not built into the new plan in order to better utilize the potential of the
riparian areas for storm detention. This is not seen as a serious problem,
as currently the impaired reach in the pasture shows no signs of channel
incision or erosion, and in actuality the channel banks are progressively
lower as one approaches the pasture reach from the upstream wooded reach.
Within the last 100 feet, the bank heights are closer to 31. Thus the 2'
banks shown in the restored reach should not pose a'serious problem. There
is some possibility that stream degradation could occur once the land
reverts to a wooded landcover. In order to prevent degradation, a series of
artificial nickpoints are built into the plan. These essentially are 2'
wide strips of rock installed at channel elevation to a depth sufficient to
prevent stream bed degradation below the elevation of the next nickpoint.
The plan calls for these every 2 to 3 feet of elevation drop along the
creek. Thus the depth of rock emplacement is 2 to 3 feet. The most that
one would see for degradation is headward erosion to a developing plunge
pool below each nick point.
1 Buffer
' As part of this restoration plan, &-,501 conservation buffer is
identified along both sides-of the creek. The only exception to this 50,
1
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.13

buffer is in the lower SW portions of the area on the.west bank. Here the
buffer is narrower ini one small area to provide utility access. All buffer
' areas are design to accommodate woody vegetation. The detention areas are
seen as supporting bottomland hardwoods.
ring
The restoration work can be broken into phases: preliminary staging
and strategic planning, excavation, emplacement of new physical stream bed
and structures, habitat establishment, stream relocation, and post-
relocation extended monitoring. The monitoring will occur at various stages
in the planning, implementation, and post relocation phases of the work.
' First, existing materials available for recycling (bed materials, biota)
' will be assessed and the recycling of these materials will be integrated
into the implementation plan as deemed practical. Second, prior to
emplacement of the bed and bank structures the planform and cross section of
the relocated channel will be verified for consistency with the plan
' described herein. Third, after bioengineering and channel structures are
installed, monitoring will again verify consistency of the work with the
' plan. Following all the restoration work, a monitoring plan will be
implemented on a quarterly basis for the first year to determine the
' seasonal integrity of the relocation work. Assuming the work is sustainable
' without significant modification, monitoring (after 1 year of performance
without modification) will shift to a 6 month cycle. All post-relocation
monitoring will involve assessments of physical and ecological stream
elements. Monitoring reports will outline assessment information and report
' any problems that need to be addressed. Redress of problems should be
completed within 6 to 12 months of formal notification. Monitoring is to
' include bank stability, performance of in-channel and bank structures, and
progress of newly established aquatic and riparian habitat.
Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.14

4

Flat branch Restoration Plan - p.15

fl

J?
UJ
scale
0 2000 ft
Figure 1. Upper First-Order Regime and Watershed of Flat Branch tributary,
which drains to Sixmile Creek, Catawba Fiver Basin

L
CR- 7
Profile
• CR-6
Profile 2
CR-4
b` CR-3 CR-5
I
CR-2
CR-1 f
C-1 9
?? -
C-1 8
C-17
0 60 ft
scale
C- -15- 1
C- 14
C- 13 ,
C- 12
1 C- 11
Figure 2a. Map. showing station and profile locations
Figure 2b. Map showing locations of observation stations, and profile for impaired reach.

0
2
4
ft
6
8
10
Profile 1: # CR-5, Inflection Point
1.<-20' - > I
........ (.„ . .
.. .. .. .... ....?. ... .)., . Benkiul ..,.,..
l 3""
B a n k f u I I stage = 1 10
............. ........................................................... ......... ....
11 22 sq.it. _.s
0 20 40 60 80
Profile 2: CR-5, Meander bend (Inner Berm).
0
2
ft 4
8
10
100ft
y1j.......... ........ .:........ ? ............ ....... ?..,.!
.1
.. .............
?2 X Bankiull
.....
.....................
h L. eankiun t?q 110
.......
.................. ....:.. _.......,.. .. ........................ . ...
20 40 60 80 10
0
2
ft 4
6
8
10
Profile 3: #C-15, Impaired Reach
0 20 40 60 80
Oft
100ft
Figure 2c. Profiles for Existing Stream Reach Conditions, Profile Locations
Shown in Figures 2a and 2b.

60 ft
N
I ' V.4
Valley Distance = 336 ft
channel Distance = 363 f t
1s k
-A ' I
rr

64.60 ft

k
9

30
50 ft 68 f+?
?7( f
t
.
1
i 37. ft 1

o
Reference Reach #1,
Cato Property Channel Grade = .95%
Sinuosity = 1.1
Meander Wavelength = 44 ft
Figure 3. Sinuosity of creek below impaired reach

p ?- N M

s-a0
N s 5_a? '
2 i t
a 5 ?=a?

W
0-80
f

f
f
L-a0
f
r t

6 L-0
r v
v; i'•
S L L-Q t
d
f n
f-
a: S L-0 L
?5 y

6 L-0
I
t5 h

L L-0 •

F

W
't
6-0 ?

L-0 t Q

Cl)

® ® O
m r N M R
W
LL J m
w
LLl
v J
2 c? ) 2
U
(D
U
c'
N
d
a
a
L
2
a
E
00
LL
d
2
OD t-
tq O O 00 CO N
?t O T r CA g co 0)
OD CO CA G C7 O Oi
W
LL
LL
Ir
c
0
E c > V O y
E lz- o 9W`
U)d°, a) am) n>wcYnY
1` n CA
Cj 00gg O0O CO
?omN cot NG OiOOi
n

c
0
E
> > > chi O N
E S cil o ca
0d°(n> (nuY)Y
O O)
O O CO 00 p
O
O co N q v vi 06
00 Cn r` O co Q M
r11, CO N LO It V' Z N 0 T
M
W
J
LL O
N
y
_ C > U O (D
E c 0 w W 3 0
?U)iL'U)>Co u)?e
rl C)
0) LgUnCRc,O0'Q wooo
'IT Lo t 00 - C(O co CD N Z N O N
I
N
8cq
a
C
O
N U)
E E Y 0 ca LU 3 0
C 3 0 d t({ Y O
ti
N
C
O
N
0
N
cd
i-
c
s
O
C
0
co
c0
(6
0
O
a
m
d
V'
N
tT
li
i
i
i
1.0
inches
.5
280
240 Q
200
160 gal/min
120
80
40
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
time (days)
Figure 5. Generalized Model for Interstorm Stream Flow Restoration

® Precipitation
Existing Storm flow

N
m.
m
N
U
U W
c
U
C N .
O c
.y J
O ?
3 0
E
N
0
J
5e
W ffi°
W
W
J
W
J .m
Q
QW
L ?
W Q
? O
e
m
a?
O
c
m
m
4
a
m
ro
m
Wk
T
O
4--
O
i6
c E
N m N
m O C
m ro
g °fy v
o o
fL p ? a
E o E
c u> > '3
m x
t •- m ao
U E £-
Q cc
W W
cr: Z
Q J
Z W
O J
m
Q
W 2
H CC
W W
0 a
°? m
O N
26
E
co
0
c
a?
r
tip
N
CU
O
a.
'n 0
'M .2
r?
m
Z X
m LO
Q Cc
w
Q
O?
F Q
0 LwLI
tu-
N N m
C C
?oY'a
?n m
m o E a
'-
c Lo 2 3
E EmE
0 0
C R
U m
O)
C m
O >
N C
O C
m
4) a
3 m
E '-
0 C
. xf
CD U
iv a
m
N ?
C?
U C -
O Co
N t
?Q
CU
4--
O
L-
0-
CD
O
L-
0
4-0
C13
i
O
??W++
ll
i
c E
N m N.
m
m ca m
ly ?Nt
?2 m O
m
'O w C O
moo•a
m? Ev_
m h 'v 3
=.g m a0
U E E

?. --j

0000?
HARP
UNCC

R Forsythe
t1011 Site 2/14/00

? ? ? ? ? ? m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Table 1. Stream Morphologic Parameters - WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Parameter Reach Morphologic Parameters
Reference
ReachExisting Restored
Conditions Impaired Reach Conditions
Sinuosity (a) 1.1 1 1.1
Pool/Riffle Ratio 2.29 0.172 2.29
Average Pool Spacing 17 250 17
Meander Wavelength (b) 44 0 44
Bankfull Height. 22" NA 22"
Bankfull width (c) 91-11' NA 91-11'
Average Bankfull Depth (d) 11" NA 11"
Flood Prone Width (e) 20' to 29' NA 20' to 29'
Entrenchment Ratio (f) 1.8 to 2.4 NA 1.8 to 2.4
Width/Depth Ratio 9 to 11 NA 9 to 11
Predominant Stream TyRe E5 NA E5
Minor Stream Type
POOLS D50 (h) .25 to.5 mm .25 to .5 mm .25 to.5 mm
RIFFLES D50 (h) 5 to12 mm 5 to12 mm 5 to12 mm
Valley Grade 0.0095 0.0085 0.0085
Stream Grade (water slope 0.0086 0.0083 0.0072
(a) sinuosity is the ration of the channel length over the valley length
(b) meander wavelength is the average separation of the channel inflection points
(c) bankfull width is measured at the height of 'bankfull' or channel forming stage level
(d) average channel depth below the bankfull stage
(e) width of the channel at a height of 2x bankfull stage height
(f) ratio of the floodprone width to channel width
(g) stream class using Rosgen, D.L. A Classification of Natural Rivers,
Catena, Vol. 22, 169-199, Elsevier Sci., B.V. Amsterdam
(h) 50% finer by weight grain size (mm)
1

7

7

0

Within Impaired Reach

7

C

i

u
u

n
Bank Condit ions in
Below Impaired Reach
Bedrock Nickpoint s in Rat Brank Creek
Below Impaired Reach
n
r
IF
'r
II
1t
¦
¦
1
ina r
on
Above Impaired Reach
of Reach Above Impaired Sect ion

TOCO

s
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 01?W'A •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 23, 2000
DWQ Project 091 t t'> 5
Mecklenburg County
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Childress Klein Properties
2850 One First Union Creek
301 South College Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-6021
Dear Sir or Madam:
On February 11, 2000 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your
stormwater plan regarding your plan to fill wetlands for the purpose of commercial/residential development
at Providence Road at I-495 in Mecklenburg County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these
wetlands.
Please call me at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our :-tiles or
procedural materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H..502(c). The processing time for this application will begin when this information is received.
1 ere'
Do y
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington Corps of Engineers
File Copy
Central Files
Kevin Caldwell - Geo-Science Group, Inc.500 Clanton Road, Suite K, Charlotte, NC 28217
991173.Childresspnd
Wetlands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

C

ina bank ouoncut ions in
Above Impaired Reach

of. ,Reach Above Impaired Section
ioded jamnsuoo lsod %ol/Palo,0ai q6oS ioAoldtug uopoy anpEuugjy Aipnuoddo lunbg uy
6966-££L # Xd3 98LI-££L-616 Quogdalas,
L09LZ EUTIoiEO guON Vlglul1 peog ?laa.1:) Kpaag IOtti ltufl IOt/sPUL'PQM
PudssazPIMY£L1166
LIZ8Z ON `QUOImgO 13I alms 'pcog uolurlD ooS'oul `dnojo aouoioS-ooo - IlomplEO UTAOX
salid IEnUQD
XcloO opj
siaauiBug jo sdioO uol8uiulliM
031WO IEU01202I OMQ QliinsOJOO l :oo
OQ-
1010 I
'panlaoal s1 uoilEUUojul sup uagm uiBoq Ipm uopluoilddE sigl .1oj Quip Suissoooid ag,I, '(o)ZOS"HZ
OdON VSI glim omupioom ui ololdmoul SE ploq uo uiEUraI IIim loofold silty 'slujimw IEmpoooid
so solw..mo jo saldoo omnbai plnom so suoilsanb Xuu annq noX 3i 9t96-££L-6I6 1E Om IIEO MOM
'spuEpam
osail ginlslp of pamnbaa s1 aMQ IUOJJ Isnoiddd 'XlunoO Sinquaploapi ui 96t-I 1u pEOd aouapinoid to
1uaUrdolanap letluapisaz/IEtoxQURUOO Jo Qsodmd ag1 ioj spuepom jig of uuld moX 8u1pmBoj urld immuums
moX jo ldiaow Aq poggou sum (OMB Xliluno n uM 3o uoisinlQ ail OOOZ ' I I kmnigQ,d uo
:UrEplow 10 ms xUacl
IZ09-ZOZ8Z EUiIOmO TJON'QUOImgO
loops oBoUoO g1noS IO£
3100iO uolufl 1sJirI QUO 0982
sopiodord uioTX ssaapligO
QaLsanba IJBaDn Nuf n
'II` W QM-11-T UdD
[C1unoO 8mquaplooW
L I bb `-?z '*loafold aMQ
OOOZ '£Z kjun.igoq
s:aom 10S3?I -ivHn1` N ON`d -LN3WNOMIAN3
30 1N3W1aVd3Q VNnM:JV3 HIHON
IJN3 :)N

ao}oaala 'suanaIS - 1 aaa}I
iJePJOOS 'UPWIOH II!8
aouaano!D I.ir'lunH -9 sewer
fgleniD i9le N to UOISIAIa
saoanosaH ieanluN puB
Ju9uauoa!nu3 to juaw:pudaa
L'u!IOJBO WON 10 a}a}S

• P:
? L?-` :'•'•.: ? ?:. .:: . ,,iii..°;'•;,:':;?':•.:
' ?,r ?t '- . ,?i: i?sy ?,•1. ,. ,_, L5' ?r
..':? - :??,+io:i`::lYitl.Vi??RwP.:'f '.,?'?-?:{v•''•,li?`VI{'',?? !.i..'Sa?:;T?,•'
top. t
fix
i

WAY.) qo.va.
-i
?•y'u
.Y,
L .
•'iw7,?Gi?4?•?'i r h:•i. .',.?°if":: ? '•'S'? M1:.T111;!?,.?yi:`.' L-?•'":i: ?,?: :':
f'"Y: . x..u•i ?,t`tr?ity:??.l,::;:.,1':u:l?.r•r,l?i,.??`,?fplL.-S•F3:' i?V.fm?:,?{.?•J .
.??.. ?.J .. ..;; ?•. ?.,,bl?'ili?•yf::?L'W?T?,;YSi?i",i:1?i3C'?,..-??.,??':. :?
Vy:
• it is _ _ "'1'; ;ty, r:•r. ;Iq:. .: •:::Y:
MI.
• 5 Ikri
1
t
a. .
?rsV?'`q? `?y? :.weld

•olquoilddu Iiiis on Xogl 3i lueoildde
oql grim oouopuodsonoo aanln3 olui paluzodzooui oq plnogs sluouturoo asagj `janamOH
•01ou oli3 u Xlazaut si outaut stg,L •uSisap aqI SUIRMSat zaauisuo oql louluoo IOU pip
I •tulpuzgns aalumuuols oql grim uuld uoileaolsaa utuatls u aniaoaa IOU pip am `oslV Juana
Xuu ui `purpom uop=jop lam papuajxo aadotd u lontisuoo of eazu g2nouo uugi aaout oq of
siroddu ojogl •gldop OSuzanu luatedde oql uo paseq pozisiopun Xlalil si puod aqj `Iuana
Xuu uI •souiloptn2 u2isop lunuuW ding oql pout of pouSisapoj oq pinogs ji `pueilam
uotlualap lam papuajxo uu oq of pasoddns st uStsap aqj 3i `.ianamog •luautIua I JQIVmuuoIs
aql jo pud 1! a7ut IOU pinoo jueoilddu oqi `gons se `puu alis uo posodoid slouduti
purpom .toj uoiluSiliui oq of pasoddns st purpom aql lugl olgissod si 11 •pasodoid st
u2isop e Bons Xqm juolo IOU si 1I •puullam palonaisuoo posodotd e oq Xuut wqm jo alppiui
oqj ui puod u Allenjoe si inq `putpom uoilualap lam popualxa uu oq of pasoddns sum
`oopoN oilgnd oqj of Buipiooou `jugj ueld .talumuuols u paliiuzgns juuoilddu oqZ
£LIi66 #01AQ
AjunoD S.znquonooW
uiolx-ssazpligD :IoofgnS
/ugof lS ppgL :urotd
a1id :o,L wnpuu.zowoW
000Z `S i (.mn tqo j
AZI"IV!la X9,LVAk dO NOISIAM
tN3CIDN.
VIAo
Project No. DWQ
Project Name: Promenade 991173
SUBMITTED DESIGN: REQUIRED DESIGN:
elevations status
Bottom of Basin (ft) 644
Permanent Pool (ft) b53 9 ft. depth check depth
Temporary Pool (ft) 657.25 4.25 ft. depth ok
areas
Permanent Pool SA (sq ft)
29850
29344 sq. ft.
ok
Drainage Area (ac) 74.2
Impervious Area (ac) 36.5 49.2%
-
volumes
Permanent Pool (cu ft) 96025
Temporary Pool (cu ft) 134673 132713 cu. ft. ok
Forebay (cu ft) 43390 45.2% check foreb6
other parameters
SA/DA 0 0.91 -
Orifice Diameter (in) 4 0.61 cfs drawdown -
Design Rainfall (in) 1 2.5 day drawdown ok
Linear Interpolation of Correct SAIDA***
9 ft. Permanent Pool Depth
% Impervious SA/DA from Table
Next Lowest 40, 0.77
Project Impervious 49.2 0.91
Next Highest 50 0.92 83600
ir,
47
f $y? :r
GEOSCIENCE
GROUP
LETTER OF TRANSMIT F 6-To: Division of Water Quality DATE: 2-10-00
4401 Reed Creek Road
Ralie h, North Carolina 27607 Promenade - Water
Attn: Todd St. John
We are sending you: Attached 0 Under separate cover
VIA: E7 Overnight 0 Regular Mail
The following items: Shop Drawings R Prints
B Specifications Copy of Letter
As Requested
For Review and Comment
Copies Date No. Description
2 2-10-00 Plans and calculations for water quality pond.

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For Approval
For your use
Remarks:
Approved as Submitted
Approved as Noted
F] Returned for Corrections
Copy To:
500 Clanton Road
Suite K
Job # 28054.00
Pond
= Pick-up = Hand Delivered/Couriered
8 Plans e Disks
Change Order Other
Charlotte, North Carolina Telephone Facsimile
28217 704.525.2003 704.525.2051
Signed: Kevin Caldwell
Geotechnical, Civil,
Environmental &
Cbnstruction Materials
wp51\transx.doc
' p

?'Y
tr
BMP Design
FOR
Promenade
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared for
City of Charlotte
February
Submittal
GE,SCIENCE
GROUP, INC.
,dv
500-K Clanton Road
Charlotte,NC 28217
[phone]

Project No. DWQ (io he provided by UWQ)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 WET DETENTION BASIN WORKSHEET
DWQ Stormwater Management Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittal includes a wet detention basin worksheet for each
basin, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all basin and outlet structure details, and a
fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a
request for additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : ?W"% C-m? r90
Contact Person: 5ces-t &m6ow4 none Number: (?o¢) 52,< • zxwO
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
Basin Bottom Elevation
Permanent Pool Elevation
Temporary Pool Elevation
Permanent Pool Surface Area
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Permanent Pool Volume
Temporary Pool Volume
Forebay Volume
SA/DA used
(Ch4 ft.
(05-5 ft.
ro5?.Z ft.
?? fd5a sq. ft.
? ?• L ac.
2i6 s ac.
a(?,oZS cu. ft.
l3gE (,?3 cu. ft.
45,?701 0 cu. ft.
o.47-
(average elevation of the floor of the basin)
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
(water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(combined volume of main basin and forebay)
(volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
Diameter of Orifice in.
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
(surface area to drainage area ratio)
(draw down orifice diameter)
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stormwater Best Management Practices
manual (N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, November 1995) and
Administrative Code Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008. Initial in the space provided to indicate the
following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If' a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why.
Applicants Initials
The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch storm event.
The basin length to width ratio is greater than 1.
-- The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
$ A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf at less than 6:1 is provided.
_4956=7-- Vegetation to the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
-,?- The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the total basin volume.
-?5- Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
45&> Access is provided for maintenance.
A minimum 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet.
A site specific operation and maintenance (O&M) plan is provided.
_,o5? A vegetation management/mowing schedule is provided in the O&M plan.
s Semi-annual inspections are specified in the O&M plan.
.--? A debris check is specified in the O&M plan to be performed after every storm event.
" A specific sediment clean-out benchmark is listed (elevation or depth) in O&M plan.
A responsible party is designated in the O&M plan.
FORM SWG 100 09/97 Page I of I
!?OHiL?/?!ft,Ov----?? T??li Z ? zvo a

?Mp p?sr
ToT-?i-r --b y - -- - -- -
wl ?f ?Lvto? 5

z? PPop .

4) M t sc.. - ? . s ?

74. Z

pa
Q?Q•P suer-?c.? = O gZ
X 74, Z =
C?• G? Ac-
tdo z

?v???. ?ue?? ??- - 2-?1??Sa 5F
- -- - --- - - -- -- t1=- D. © 5 f D- `? Z _ ----- -- - - - --- -----
= 0-05 t D• oa ?j C SO) = D • Sd

1 r
Vol" Pr

G vn ?? ice. FOOU
M 15-Imp .

30 S z s " `?' Z
?-ra Pow ? v• = 6 s 3, t ?- Z
6S7•za

_ _ ?•!' (off: ?-(?.Z? .
ee> pr

r-
57oP?Pt
• Gi?E

F
- - - - C
Pooh,
----- -- ---- - - _:__
Ps-r Foam _ _ `''' A
°la ?? ?rrr e Y _
Off-
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
PROJECT: PROMENADE(1" RAINFALL SS)
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE-
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE-STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks*Z^b
S = STORAGE (ft^3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE ACC.
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft) STORAGE(act)
653 29850 0
30525 30525 0.70
654 31200 1
31850 62375 1.43
655 32500 2
33100 95475 2.19
656 33700 3
34300 129775 2.98
657 34900 4
SOLVING FOR CONSTANTS Ks & b:
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
SELECT EXISTING VALUES TO MODEL CONSTANTS BY.
Z1 = 1
Z2 = 4
S1 = 30525
S2 = 129775
b = (In(S2/S1))/(In(Z2/Z1))
b= 1.04
Ks = S2/Z2^b
Ks= 30525
VALIDATION OF STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION:
ACTUAL ACTUAL COMPUTED COMPUTED
STORAGE STAGE STORAGE STAGE
S(ft^3) Z(ft) S(ft^3) Z(ft)
30525.00 1 30525.00 1.00
62375.00 2 62939.51 1.98
95475.00 3 96107.70 2.98
129775.00 4 129775.00 4.00
0 0.00 0.00
...THEREFORE THE STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION IS ADEQUATE
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
PROJECT: Forebay
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. forebay
MAIN COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
644 300
1800 1800
646 1500
5000 6800
648 3500
17280 24080
651 8020
8820 32900
652 9620
19735
52635
653 29850
forebay COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
644 490
2890 2890
646 2400
7360 10250
648 4960
13160 23410
650 8200
19980
43390
652 11780
0
2
4
7
8
9
0
2
4
6
8
Sheet1
Calculate Tc
Pre-Development

First 100' (urban)

Head= 2 ft
mannings= 0.011
-- P2= 3.12 in
Length= 100 ft

So=H/L= 0.020 ft/ft

Eqn 3.3 TR55
Tt=0.007 (n L) ^0.8/P^.5*So^.4
= 0.02 hr = 1.23 min.

Remaining 2700 ft
Head= 54 ft
Length= 2700 = 0.511 mi.

So=H/L= .0.020 ft/ft
V=16.1345S^0.5 Egp.3.23 croswdm
= 2.281763 fps

Tt=L/3600V Egn.3.15 croswdm
= 0.33 hr = 19.72 min.

Tc=Tt+Tt= 0.35 hr = 20.95 min.

Lag=.6Tc 0.21 hr

Page 1
1*****************************************
***************************************
* *
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:44:19
*
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X. X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM.
1 HEC-1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID....... 1....... 2....... 3....... 4.... . ....... ....... .. .8.......9......10
1 ID PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIO
2 ID 2 YEAR STORM
3 ID
4 IT 1 0 360
5 IO 5 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 PH 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 KM 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0 61
19 UD .21
20 ZZ
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:44:19
*****************************************
***************************************
PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION
2 YEAR STORM
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 1 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 360 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0559 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.02 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 5.98 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES
PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES
LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET
FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET
SURFACE AREA ACRES
TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG 0.01667 0.01667 6.00000
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 7. 3.45 2. 2. 2.
0.12
*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc..
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:47:16
*
*****************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 hh;U-1 1NVUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID....... 1....... 2 ....... 3... .... 4.... ... .. .. .9...... 10
1 ID PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION
2 ID 10 YEAR STORM
3 ID
4 IT 1 0 0 360
5 IO 5 0 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 KM 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 PH 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0 61
19 UD .21
20 ZZ
1*****************************************
* *
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:47:16
*
*****************************************
***************************************
MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION
STAGE MAX STAGE
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 1 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 360 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0559 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.02 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 5.98 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG
1
BASIN
AREA
0.12
PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION
10 YEAR STORM
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
0.01667 0.01667 6.00000
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
FLOW PEAK
HYDROGRAPH AT
RUNOFF 58. 3.30
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
8. 8. 8.
*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***
Sheet1
Calculate Tc
Post-Development

First 100'

Head= 2 ft
mannings= 0.011
P2= 3.12 in
_
Length= 100 ft

So=H/L= 0.020 ft/ft

Eqn 3.3 TR55
Tt=0.007 (n L)^0.8/P^.5*So^.4
- 0.02 hr

Remaining 2900 ft
L= 2900 ft
h= 54 ft
V = [1.49(R)^2/3(S)1/2]/n (3.25)

assume avg. pipe size= 24 in
area = 3.142 sq.ft.
n= 0.012
r= 0.05

s= 0.018621 ft/ft

V = [1.49(R)^2/3(S)1/2]/n= 2.30 fps,

Compute travel time

T=L/(3600V) (3.15)

T=L/(3600V) (3.15)= 0.35 hr.

Tc= 0.37 hr.

Lag=.6*Tc 0.22 hr.

I
I
i
Developed by: Scott Gregory
2/8/00

q
?
0 n

j N tl
I ?

t, ? o

n ? M
M N tJ

to

p (1 I I

V
?
?

G _n
V

It
V"
0
0
0 O? O O O
N M
O
Lq O J
Q Q Q N
co 00 0)

(0 < CO co w
0 II
I 0 > I II
I >
I ? II II N
I II
o
W W W o O W
LO O
cfl vt- (0 ". w C4 w
O
7 o 7
cu
O cu
O
x co cu
O N (0
N
E E E X E E E
C C C L C

r x
o

C
O t
m
O Q
(D
N d
JN LO
N m
7

? ? ? U?
<'
L
= N
a N
3 N N
D N N G)
O ll.
L to .
U') C V) J V) J
L
p cfl w CD CO
M
?
Oa 11
0 a II
0 o O II II
00 O
m II
d0
W to 'r,

0 () O r 0* M CO m o 0 0 0
t t N
m

O
06
° O cq N ? 0
? O O p
00
to 0 0 0 0
w o 0 0 cfl Cl) o 0 0 0
2 C
E O O O ,n o r- o c; O O
6
c
0
U

0
3:
c)

p

0

o

o

`
co

0

°

o

°

°
S 0 00 0
: o o o

r- c o 0 0 -
LO o o 0 0

0
O E
U
' o O O °MR 'Nn t- ao 0 0
CD . . 0 0
3 0 0 0 ,? o ? o 0 0 0
x
O
m _
U O O O cD °? O O O
v 00
O o o 0 w 0 0 0 0
Q N N
C

0 C) 0 0 co 0 LO
W) to 0)
o p o o o
o
O 0
O
N
N
N
N
M
O
O
C o
O

O
U
C) C> p o o °`t' v M o ° ° °
O 00 o o o o
O O N N m NT w 0 0 0 0
C
'C
Ca
O o o n LO (0
00 to
`n X 0 0 0 0
4
=
'
L

O

O

r. O

N Ln

N O

N N

cn

0

0

0

0
O
m

tL m N LO o co rn I-
0
0
d O
o M
N am
r eM
o "Q
N Ln
o 0
o 0
O 0
O O O
w
3 M
? _
N N
N th
N
N V'
N to
N 0 0 0 0
O
r
U
O
O
0
o
C)
t-
O
O
O
O
0 0 N N O 0 0 0
w O - 0 0 0 0
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> cV O O Lq O to O O O O O
ti co m m 6 6 V 0 0 0 0
w to to w W w w to CD o CD o
to w w w to w to
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
PROJECT: PROMENADE
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-STORAGE CURVE-PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE-
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE-STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks*Z^b
S = STORAGE (ft^3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR CONTOUR INCREMENTAL ACC. STAGE ACC.
ELEV.(ft) AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3) STORAGE(ft^3) (ft) STORAGE(ac.ft)
657.2 101530 0
81956 81956 1.88
658 103360 0.8
104905 186861 4.29
659 106450 1.8
108260 295121 6.78 ,
660 110070 2.8
111330 406451 9.33
661 112590 3•
113964 520414 11.95
662 115337 4•,
Curve Number Calc's
Impervious (Ac.) ? 36.5
Pervoius (Ac.) 74.2 37.7
Total 74.20 74.2
Curve Number, CN:
Impervious (Ac.) 98 98
Pervoius (Ac.) 61 .61
Weighted 61 79.20
(see Drainage Plan)
***************************************
* *
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:42:38
*
*****************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE.USED
WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 HEC-1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID....... 1....... 2....... 3....... 4. .. ....
1 ID PROMENADE WET POND
2 ID 2 YEAR STORM
3 ID
4 IT
5 IO 5 0 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 PH 0 0 0.42 0.83
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 KM 0 0 0.59 1.26
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR.
16 KM 0 0. 0.83 1.78
POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
1.45 1.76 1.95
2.36 2.9 3.21
2.76 3.4 3.75
3.05 3.78 4.20
3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0 79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY ROUTING
21 KM 4"ORIFICE AND 1'X
22 KO 0
23 RS 1 ELEV 657.2
24 SV 0 1.88 4.29
25 SE 657.2 658 659
26 SQ .9 1 13.1
27 SE 657.2 658 659
28 ST 661 150 3
29 ZZ

***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:42:38
* *
*****************************************
***************************************
4' OPENING
6.78 9.3
660 661
33.8 78.3
659.5 660
1.5
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
2 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING
* *
**************
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 69. 3.30 9. 5. 5.
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 7. 4.80 5. 3. 3.
0.12
658.52 4.80
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
RATIO MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DURATION
TIME OF TIME OF
OF RESERVOIR DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW FAILURE
PMF W.S.ELEV OVER DAM AC-FT CFS HOURS
HOURS HOURS
1.00 658.52 0.00 3. 7. 0.00
4.80 0.00
*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE .(HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:45:24
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX
X X X
X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX
X X X
X X X
X X XXXXXXX
XXXXX X
X X XX
X X
X XXXXX X
X X
X X X
XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1
PAGE 1
HEC-1 INPUT
LINE
ID....... 1.... ...2....... 3... .... 4... .10
1 ID PROMENADE WET POND
2 ID 10 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
3 ID
4 IT 2 0 0 300
5 IO 5 0 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 KM 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 PH 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 .2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0 79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE and 11X 4' OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1 ELEV 657.2
24 SV 0 1.88 4.29 6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2 658 659 660 661
26 SQ .9 1 13.1 33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2 658 659 659.5 660
28 ST 661 150 3 1.5
29 ZZ

*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:45:24
*
************************************** ***

137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
10 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL w 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
*
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING
* *
**************
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 173. 3.27 23. 14. 14.
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 55. 3.77 18. 11. 11.
0.12
659.74 3.77
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
RATIO MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DURATION
TIME OF TIME OF
OF RESERVOIR DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW FAILURE
PMF W.S.ELEV OVER DAM AC-FT CFS HOURS
HOURS HOURS
1.00 659.74 0.00 6. 55. 0.00
3.77 0.00 now=*
*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:48:58
*
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1
PAGE 1
HEC-1 INPUT
LINE
ID....... 1....... 2..... .. 3... .... 4.. 7 .. ... .... ....
1 ID PROMENADE WET POND
2 ID 50 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
3 ID
4 IT 2 0
5 IO 5 0 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 KM 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 KM 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 PH 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE
and 1'X
4' OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2
658
659
660 661
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2
658
659
659.5 660
28 ST 661
150
3
1.5
29 ZZ
1*****************************************
***************************************
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:48:58
*
***************************************
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
50 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING

* *
**************
RATIO
MAXIMUM
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL
VARIABLES
MAXIMUM
DURATION
IPRNT
5
PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT
0
PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL
0.
HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW
IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN
HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
W.S.ELEV
PEAK
TIME OF
AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
HOURS
HOURS
OPERATION STATION FLOW
PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 267. 3.27
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 131. 3.60
0.12
660.44 3.60
6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
35. 21. 21.
30. 19. 19.
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
RATIO
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
DURATION
TIME OF
TIME OF
OF
RESERVOIR
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
PMF
W.S.ELEV
OVER DAM
AC -FT
CFS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
1.00
660.44
0.00
8.
131.
0.00
3.60
0.00
emmmmmmmm%
ammoft
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:51:05
*
*****************************************
***************************************
X X
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
X
X X
X
X X
XX
X X
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
XXXX
X
XXXXX X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES-RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 HEC -1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID.......
1 .......
2 ....... 3 .......
4.
.......7....... U ........
.10
1
ID
PROMENADE WET
POND
2
ID
100 YEAR
STORM
POST
DEVELOPED
CONDIT N
3
ID
4
IT
2
0
5
IO
5
0
0
6
KK
RUNOFF
FROM
AREA
7
KM
2
YEAR
8
KM
0
0
0.42
0.83
1.45
1.76
1.95
2.28
9
KM
10
YEAR
10
KM
0
0
0.59
1.26
2.36
2.9
3.21
3.72
11
KM
25
YEAR
12
KM
0
0
0.68
1.47
2.76
3.4
3.75
4.38
13
KM
50
YEAR
14
KM
0
0
0.75
1.62
3.05
3.78
4.20
4.92
15
KM
100
YEAR
16
PH
0
0
0.83
1.78
3.34
4.12
4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE
and 11X
4' OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2
658
659
660 661
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2
658
659
659.5 660
28 ST 661
150
3
1.5
29 ZZ
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:51:05
* *
*****************************************
***************************************
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
100 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING

* *
**************
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
.PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 306. 3.27
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 164. 3.53
0.12
660 69 3.53
6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
40. 24. 24.
35. 21.. :21.
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9•
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208. .
208.
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
RATIO
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
DURATION
TIME OF
TIME OF
OF
RESERVOIR
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
PMF
W.S.ELEV
OVER DAM
AC -FT
CFS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
1.00
660.69
0.00
9.
164.
0.00
3.53
0.00
sommommme
qmmm
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

Worksheet
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet
outlet pipe
Flow Element
Circular Chann<
Method
Manning's Fora
Solve For
Full Flow Diame
Input Data
Mannings Coeffic 0.012
Slope
005000 ft/ft
Discharge
131.00 cfs
Results
pvm D Gxj �c S
Depth
4.27 ft U'76
Diameter
51 in
Flow Area
1 :
Wetted Perime
0.00 ft
Top Width
0.00 ft
Critical Depth
3.40 ft
Percent Full
100.0 %
Critical Slope
005274 ft/ft
Velocity
9.15 ft/s
Velocity Head
1.30 ft
Specific Energ:
5.57 ft
Froude Numbe
0.00
Maximum Disc
140.92 cfs
Discharge Full
131.00 cfs
Slope Full
005000 ft/ft
Flow Type
N/A
Project Engineer: Scott Gregory
untitled.fm2 GeoScience Group FlowMaster v6.0 1614ej
02/08/00 01:32:01 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

MIAMI
C�
1\�
IRXXVI�AU
` �ffiif■ ■■ �iff� f
ll
TERSTATE HIGH C
UBIi 5
mom
�I
I
1\�
IRXXVI�AU
` �ffiif■ ■■ �iff� f
ll
TERSTATE HIGH C
UBIi 5

690

Providence Road (NC16)
and
I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
J*
ENT
RECEIVED
Individual Permit Report
and
Supporting Documentation
Prepared For:
Mr. David Haggart
Childress Klein Properties
2800 One First Union Center
301 S. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6021
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
=Subject to verification by the USACE
Date: 9/99
1

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
t33 CFR 325)
OMB APPROVAL N0. 0710-003
Expires October 1996
o mg burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
fisting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
Mnt5 regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
/ITEMS RFI OW TO RF L7II Fn RV dDD/te A AIT
5. APPLI ANT'S NAMES.
ITEMS 7 THRU 4 TO HE
FILLED BY THE CORP
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
=DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
/ITEMS RFI OW TO RF L7II Fn RV dDD/te A AIT
5. APPLI ANT'S NAMES.
AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE /an agent is notreouireO)
6. APPLICANT'S, ADDRESS
Gin) I dt-e,� e,(I� p,�a I��-i-►es
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
3� i � S �-�sl'►�'�te, L�.�e
P
2 0 0vie s�' V€�rdn ,,�e✓ ��d �, e i(� � Si-
ChiIVf C, /,J C,
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W AREA CODE
10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W AREA CODE
a. Residence
a. Residence
b. Business - -7o,4 - 3,,47- - cl voo
b. Business (ge{. I
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, �Onte��i�y1�Od/ to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
> 9 to lqq
APPLICANT'S SIG E DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) f h 11C)eIr4e- 4 Y�o��I' •� l /'j_ �� o t°�
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOW I)tappliicc_.bb/e) 4. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS afapp)icabie)
(n+t,.'- M t't'1"Zk+: unnekrn.erA GrG� vy -� Ise S
-t-o 16+ F:x"e'� at, 'G)u . M i It, Cr4e. � I r, i er- � io►'1
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,, IF KNOWN, Iseeinstructions) i
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
or\ l n s- le; � C kor 1x:>44 -e-,, 0.�c� - See-- rn�qp ir,
ENG FORM 4345, Feb 94
EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE.(Proponent:

LEONARD S. RINDNERr PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist
Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning
[phone]
September 9, 1999
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Dorney
Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Mike Parker
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Providence Road (NC16) and I-485 Property - ± 52.25 Acre Site
Charlotte Mecklenburg
County, North_Carolina
Dear Sirs:
On behalf of my client, Mr. David Haggart of Childress -Klein Properties, Inc., I am providing you with the
following information concerning the proposed mixed use development at the intersection of Providence
Road and Interstate 485 for your consideration. The project site is located in south Mecklenburg County,
NC. The site is currently zoned for a mixed-use development consisting of commercial business and
multi-famLly development. The uniquely designed project concept was locally approved by the Mecklenburg
County Commissioners on April 13, 1999.
Background
Childress -Klein Properties is applying for a Department of the Army Permit to discharge fill material into an
unnamed intermittent tributary of Flat Branch and 1.24 acres of adjacent wetlands in conjunction with the
development of a 52 acre regional commercial center at the intersection of Providence Road (NC 16);
Interstate 485; and Ballantyne Commons Parkway in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
stream and adjacent wetlands originate on the property. Since Ballantyne Commons Parkway and
Providence Road are on the ridge line the upstream watershed is minor. The streams and wetlands on the
site will be impacted by the extensive grading required to prepare the site for the development. The
developer has initiated review with the State of North Carolina and has responded to comments regarding
avoidance, minimization, mitigation requirements and stormwater treatment requirements.
Based on a field survey the proposed activity will not affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as
endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The survey conducted by Dr..
James Matthews of the Habitat Assessment Restoration Program is included in this report.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 3, September 9, 1999
According to the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places for the presence or
absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, this site is not
registered property or property listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Based on a field survey
conducted by Thomas Hargrove of Archaeological Research Consultants no important archaeological,
scientific, prehistorical, or historical data will be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit. His
report has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and concurrence.
The compensatory mitigation proposal involves the creation of approximately 1.24 acres of wetlands or the
use of the North Carolina Wetland Restoration program to meet the minimum 1:1 restoration/creation State
of North Carolina wetland mitigation requirement. Additionally, 18 to 20 acres of swamp forest and upland
buffers (part of the Providence Flats, identified by the Natural Heritage Program will be preserved. Stream
mitigation will be conducted by restoring 1,580 linear feet of degraded stream channel through agricultural
land downstream of the project. Stream restoration goals for this reach includes restoring and creating a self
sustaining stable stream, improving habitat, and using natural materials to improve stream aesthetics.
Restoration/enhancement methods to be used include installing J hook vanes, rock cross vanes, and
re-establishing vegetation. Based on a more detailed evaluation the developer may elect to utilize the North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program to satisfy the stream mitigation requirements. ��q�` �•�
The requested permit request has considered an evaluation of the probable and cumulative impacts and its 5., 6
intended use on the public interest. Based on a comprehensive analysis we believe that this proposal
complies with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. The economic benefits of this
project have been balanced by a significant mitigation plan to minimize and balance the environmental
consequences. The proposal reflects the national concern for both the protection and utilization of important
resources. Relevant factors included in the proposal include general environmental concerns, wetlands,
cultural values, fish and wildlife values, land use, water quality, considerations of property ownership, and in
general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Site Specy7c Information
The site is within the headwater drainage area of an unnamed tributary to Flat Branch, a tributary to Six Mile
Creek, in the Sugar Creek Sub -Basin of the Catawba River (Water Classification - Q. The majority of the
site is moderately sloping former agricultural land and timbered woodland (except for several mature oak
tress) which has succeeded to woodland in various stages of secondary succession to mature forest. Areas
of wetlands were found in connection with the headwater tributaries.
Vegetation
The forested and scrub/shrub headwater wetland areas are dominated by Facultative, Facultative Wet and
Obligate species. Trees include willow oak, green ash, red maple, black willow, alder, silky dogwood,
spicebush, and sweetgum. Understory and herbaceous strata includes smilax, microstegium, sedges, soft
rush, and others. Herbaceous and scrub/shrub vegetation are more dominant in areas subject to constant
saturation or flooding, and areas in earlier succession.
oils
Wetlands areas appear to occur in Iredell soils on this site. Iredell B soil may have hydric inclusions
according to the Soil Conservation Service, Technical Guide -Section ll -A-2, June 1991.

171
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 4, September 9, 1999
Hvdrolo
Wetlands associated with the tributaries are the result surface runoff, springs/seeps, and a high seasonal
water table. The clayey subsoils contribute to the development of perched wetlands along the tributaries.
Most of the streams were confirmed as having important aquatic value by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Characteristics include persistent pools,
macro -invertebrates; evidence of wildlife utilizing the stream; and gravelly to sandy channel substrate. The
wetlands on this site were be found to have important function and value in regard to pollution removal,
bank stabilization, aquatic life resources utilizing Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina - Fourth Version.
A wetland delineation was conducted to determine the actual extents and surveyed for planning and study
purposes.
Summary of Waters of the U.S.
Methodology_
Preliminary identification and delineation of the Jurisdictional Waters on the site were determined according
to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987, with Appendices.
Preliminary data gathering included review and interpretation of topographic maps; USDA Soil
Conservation Survey; aerial photographs, and preliminary site visits to selected areas. Then the Routine
On -Site Determination Method was utilized to determine the upper boundary of the wetlands. In order to
make a positive wetland determination indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland
hydrology must be identified as described in the manual. The wetland boundary and surface waters were
identified in the field by Leonard S. Rindner, PWS and were reviewed and verified by the USACE (Steve
Chapin). The approved map has been used for planning and potential permitting purposes.
General Wetland Classification and Description
The wetlands on this site can be described as Palustrine Forested Broad - Leaved Temporarily Flooded.
They have formed in perched water table conditions, in flat to nearly level areas and depressions over an
extremely dense clay soil layer often typical of Iredell soils. According to Soil Conservation Service,
Technical Guide -Section 111-A-2, June 1991, IrA soils are listed as Map Units with inclusions of Hydric Soils
in Mecklenburg County. As depicted on the attached map the extent of the Jurisdictional Waters of the
U.S. on this 52 acre site is approximately 1.43 acres, of which wetlands consist of 1.24 acres.
Vegetative Communities
A majority of the site is in various stages of old field succession from formerly farmed areas. The wetland
areas are generally forested.
Bottomland Hardwood/Headwater Forest
The Bottomland Hardwood and Headwater Forests on this site have developed in the flat to nearly level
drainageways and depressions. Species which occur in these areas include Willow Oak (dominant species),
Green Ash, Sweetgum, Red Maple, Hackberry, Shumard Oak, Ironwood, and other typical species that
tolerate these wet and shallow root conditions. Common understory trees and shrubs include silky dogwood,
and alder. Woody vines include poison ivy, and greenbriar. The herbaceous layer is variable based on
exposure to light. Species include sedge and rush species, jewelweed, and others

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 5, September 9, 1999
Open Field
This includes all non -wetland areas dominated by herbaceous plants, such as the power line right of ways
and other cleared areas. These have been periodically mowed and are dominated by pasture grasses and
perennial herbs including broomsedge, goldenrod, and bush clover. Other areas have been undisturbed for
longer and are in transition to dominant species such as blackberry, greenbriar, redcedar, pines, and saplings.
Mixed Forest
The non -wetland forested areas of the site are dominated by mixed forest. The Mixed Forest is characterized
by a mixture of canopy species of pines and hardwoods. Small areas within these forest areas may have a
predominance of pine or hardwoods. Pines include shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, and loblolly pine, with
eastern redcedar. Hardwoods include pine, sweetgum, red maple, red oak, white oak, tulip poplar, hickory,
and other common species. The subcanopy contains saplings and seedlings of canopy species. Other
subcanopy species include black cherry, holly, dogwood, elm, and privet. Woody vines common in the
understory include poison ivy, muscadine grape, honeysuckle, and other herbaceous and woody species.
Hydrophytic Vegetation has been identified according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2�, US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hydric soils
None of the soils are listed as Hydric, according to the National List of Hydric Soils_ 1991 however
inclusions of hydric soils occur with IrA soils in depressions and level drainage ways. Hydric soils are
defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Hydrology
Water Classification - C
The unnamed tributary of Flat Branch is part of the Catawba River Basin and currently classified a Class C -
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Wetland
hydrology is provided by a surface runoff, overbank flooding, seeps, and springs over a clayey subsoil.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S and Description
1) Wetland (PFO IA) ± 1.24 acres
2) Intermittent/Perennial Stream (± 15801f "important") ± 0.17 acres
3) Intermittent. Stream (± 660 if "unimportant") ± 0.02 acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters' ± 1.43 acres
Results of Preliminary Discussions with USACE and the NCDWQ
The USACE will coordinate permitting with the NCDWQ, especially regarding stormwater treatment. Based
on this review the USACE requested additional information including avoidance and minimization
alternatives which is provided in this report.

44jo,111.
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Domey, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 6, September 9, 1999
No Practicable AlternativelAvoidance Analysis
The northwest corner of Providence Road and I-485 has been zoned for commercial use since 1990. At the
time of the original zoning of the property, the construction of I485 had not yet commenced. However, the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Planning Commission (CWC)) recognized that the construction of a new freeway
would create tremendous pressure for new development. Therefore, in 1990, the CMPC with cooperation
from area landowners and residents created the Providence Road/I-485 Small Area Land Use Plan (also
known as the Special Project Plan). This plan suggested appropriate land uses for all properties within the
sphere of influence of the Providence Road/I-485 interchange, an area roughly covering a one -mile radius
around the interchange. This plan was approved by vote of both the Charlotte City Council and the
Mecklenburg County Commission. The intent was to function as a "road map" for the future development of
this area.
The 52 acre subject property was designated to contain the following commercial land uses: 300,000 square
feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of retail space and a 250 room hotel. The designation of this site for
such commercial uses was dictated by several attributes of the site:
1. With 1,200 feet of frontage on Providence Road and 1,900 feet of frontage on Ballantyne Commons
Parkway, the Subject Property is one of the few sites in the sphere of influence that offers adequate access to
accommodate commercial uses.
2. The other two sides of the site front I-485 and the Jonesville AME Zion Church. Therefore, the lack of
adjacency to residential areas eliminates difficult transition concerns, making this site appropriate for
commercial uses.
3. The site's adjacency to the interchange minimizes the traffic impact on the overall road network within the
sphere of influence. Another site within this area might have to "pull" traffic through a neighborhood and
create a longer drive distance from the freeway.
The previous stated reasons for designating the site as a commercial land use plan also delineate the reasons
that no alternative plans or alternate site is available. The land use plan considered all sites within the sphere
of influence for the appropriate use. If the use of the Subject Property were changed, in theory, another site
within the sphere of influence would have to "swap" its use with the Subject Property. This would involve
trading development rights with another landowner, an unlikely scenario at best. More importantly, all other
sites were already evaluated during the study process and commercial land uses were determined to be the
best use of the Subject Property.
Reduction of scope was also not considered feasible for the development of the Subject Property. The
wetland and streams that are proposed to be impacted lie in the center of the site. In order to avoid the
wetlands and the streams, the site would have to be divided into two separate sites on opposite sides of the
stream. Neither portion on its own could function with appropriate amounts of building and parking areas.
Additionally the stream bed is so much lower than the proposed finished grades based on engineering
requirements (15' - 20') that it would be difficult to create any continuity between the two sections of the
development. It is likely that the total square footage of the project would have to be reduced by 50% or
more to accommodate this scenario. The loss of this amount of square footage is not economically feasible.
Another constraining factor for the project is the entrance locations. The Providence Road entrance to the
project, is based on its relationship to I-485 and the intersection with Ballantyne Commons Parkway, since
the curb cut cannot move avoidance is even more difficult from a land use perspective. The entrance
immediately encounters a section of wetlands, the edge of which ranges from 130' to 200' from the road
right-of-way. This is very

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 7, September 9, 1999
tight spacing and would require that an entrance driveway have a severe angle in it to avoid this wetland
area. An angled driveway would be difficult to design and would not be functional.
There is also, according to Dr. Randy Forsythe, of University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a strong
likelihood that development adjacent to this perched wetland would directly and negatively impact the
wetlands. The hydrological support to this wetland habitat will likely to be non -sustainable due to the loss of
recharge through the interflow zones over the dense soil layer. It is also likely the seasonal water table that
feeds the groundwater seep at the head of the intermittent tributary will be lower, further reducing the
sustainability of the wetland and stream hydrology. Thus, even if a discharge to the wetland could be
avoided, adjacent unregulated activity will likely impact the jurisdictional wetland negatively.
Minimization Analysis
As stated in the previous paragraph, the impacted streams and wetlands on the subject property lie in the
center of an almost square site. The proposed site plan for the 500,000 square foot development on the
subject property is the result of a yearlong process involving the developer, CMPC Staff and the public. In
early 1998, the landowner selected Childress Klein Properties to develop the property. Market conditions at
that time suggested that there was more demand for retail space than office space. The developer filed a
rezoning application in June, 1998. At the same time, after an urging from the neighborhoods, CMPC
determined that the 1990 Special Project Plan needed to be updated. After nine months of public meetings,
the CMPC staff issued a draft revised land use plan, dated February 3, 1999. This was approved by the
CMPC on April 20, 1999.
In this plan, the suggested use for the Subject Property is "predominantly retail and a ... limited amount of
second -story office." The plan also suggests that the site should create a central open space that acts as a
focal point to the development." These statements reflect current trends in urban planning, which suggest
that retail development needs to be more pedestrian friendly and return to a "Main Street" type feel. In fact,
the CMPC document suggests that a guiding principle of community design is "Main Street" retail that
creates a Main Street for the area by placing buildings along local streets with parking located behind
buildings. The design guidelines go further by stating that retail area should be walkable, should have a
village character, should include a green space component, and should be a focal point for the community.
The current zoning of the property was approved on April 13, 1999. A key requirement of the zoning
addresses the design guidelines by requiring a village green of one acre in size. The attached plan the site
plan shows the village green with streams and wetlands overlaid. For the village green to be functional as a
pedestrian -oriented space, it must have a good system of streets that lead into it and it must have a good
grade relationship to the buildings that surround it. The street network also allows the site plan to
accommodate the "Main Street" design requirements.
This concept would be impossible to create without significant grading. The elevation of stream 91 (as
shown on the site plan ranges from 15-20 feet below most of the surrounding area which is an "S" shaped
ridge. The distance from building face to building face across the village green is approximately 300 feet. In
order to function as a pedestrian friendly space, the slope across the area should not exceed 5%. This means
that the building floor elevations on either side of the green must be within 15 feet of each other. To
accomplish this and leave the stream bed undisturbed is impossible. If the stream were to be saved, it would
be located within a ravine. Retaining walls would have to be located on either side of the stream to make up
the grade difference of 15-20 feet from the bottom of the stream bed to the proposed finished elevation of
the village green. In order to stay below the Individual Permit threshold of 500 linear feet, +/- 1,200 linear
feet of stream would have to be preserved on site. This length translates into +/- 2,400 linear feet of
retaining walls. If the average height of the walls was 15 feet, the retaining walls would cost $504,000 at a
unit price of $14/square foot plus approximately $40,000 for foundations. Therefore, the total cost would
likely exceed one half million dollars.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 8, September 9, 1999
Another important part of the zoning is that the parking areas must be shielded by buildings and be located
outside the building envelope as shown on the technical data sheet attached as Exhibit `B". This forces all
buildings into the middle of the site where the streams and steepest grades are located. The previous
paragraph gives a good description of the challenges presented by trying to modify the current plan and
comply with the zoning on the property. If the stream were saved with retaining walls, the stream would
likely become dry since most of the drainage that currently feeds into the stream would go into the new
storm drainage system. Since the site sits at the top of the drainage basin, any development scenario would
likely remove most of the current drainage into these streams. Therefore, as dry stream beds, and sitting so
far below the surface, they would be aesthetically detrimental to the site.
Determination of NoPracticable Alternative
This project is designed to take advantage of the well planned road transportation system enabling the region
to be served. The driving force behind all retail developments is the strength of the anchor tenants. The
stronger the anchors, the larger the geographical draw will be, resulting in overall success for the smaller
shops which are often owned and operated by residents of the community. Vacant buildings resulting from
poor planning and improper design in retail centers create eyesores within the community. For these
reasons, the wetland area should be filled for retail development. Reducing the size of the buildings does not
meet current market design standards and can severely jeopardize the success of the project in this highly
competitive industry. Therefore it would not be feasible as a project.
In conclusion, due to the site planning constraints (earthwork) of a development of this type, large
contiguous areas must be graded for building pads and parking. To balance the environmental consequences
of these unavoidable impacts to surface waters and wetlands the developer has proposed minimization
measures and a mitigation plan that has been developed in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, and representatives of local environmental organizations.
In response to the neighborhood and community concern the developer modified its site plan to save many
mature groups of existing trees as highlighted on the technical data sheet for the Public Hearing Petition
998-49(c). A substantial landscaping plan will include a variety of hardy indigenous groups and specimens
and large trees that will, in time, re-establish a canopy, although in a more planned urban setting. As part of
the wetland mitigation plan the developer is proposing preservation in perpetuity of a large mature forested
wetland and adjacent forested buffer from future development impacts immediately downstream of this
project.
General Site Planning Criteria for Retail Shopping Centers
The retail shopping center layout is based on visibility from surrounding roads, continuity between buildinds,
vehicular access and parking, and general service for store deliveries/maintenance. In addition, local
municipalities place other requirements such as building, and parking setbacks, landscape/screening
requirements, and access for emergency vehicles (i.e., fire trucks). Normally corners are coveted locations
for anchor tenants, especially when access points are incorporated nearby. The large anchor tenants that
attract the majority of shoppers are therefore given the highest priority in site selection. They tend to be
large credit worthy corporations that guarantee the financial success of a project. If the anchor tenant does
not attract shoppers, then the associated shops generally will not be successful either. Parking bays for
anchor tenants are designed to provide quick, easy access to the store front. Generally the majority of
parking spaces are located within 300 feet from the front door, although parking bay depth may be 400 to
500 feet in order to provide the required number of parking spaces to meet code requirements.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 9, September 9, 1999
General building configuration can take several forms depending on the size and shape of the site. Service
and maintenance areas are located in the rear of each building - - normally a continuous asphalt service road
runs the entire length of the shopping facility. The ideal service area for anchor tenants is generally 80-100
feet wide; however, under more restrictive conditions this dimension can be reduced to 50-60 feet. All
deliveries and service calls are made in this area; and it must be able to accommodate large
semi-tractor/trailer trucks 40 feet in length. Grading the site is also a significant determinant in providing
vehicular/pedestrian access and views from the adjacent roadways. The anchor buildings are generally placed
at a vertical elevation that will promote a reasonable view into the site from the road. The buildings cannot
be too high or low such that the view of the anchor tenant(s) will be obscured in anyway. The parking lot
grades generally do not exceed 3 vertical feet in 100 linear feet (3 -percent) in order to provide easy
pedestrian access to the retail stores from any area in the parking lot. This gentle slope also allows drivers
to park easily, get in -and -out of their cars with minimal difficulty, and makes the movement of shopping
carts feasible. Most sites that are chosen for retail development will generally have reasonable slopes from
2-8 percent in addition to being strategically located within the community. The site will be leveled in order
to create views from the roadway, promote convenient circulation within the site, and allow the use of
slab -on -grade foundation construction for the buildings. In addition to these general size and layout
requirements, Local and State governments generally specify other site and building code restrictions.
Access and parking requirements are established by local ordinance and by the governing body responsible
for maintaining the adjacent roads. The North Carolina Department of Transportation makes the final
determination on proposed driveway permits.
More important than size, the buildings of each shopping area are oriented to provide deliberate,
unobstructed views to each other and to the adjoining roads. Internal visibility of storefronts has a huge
impact on the success of small local shops as they rely on the traffic from the larger anchor stores to see
their signage and therefore patronize their stores. Tying the development parcels together visually to form a
single development is the most important factor in making this a project successful. Direct visual access to a
retail anchor is considered paramount to the success of a shopping facility.
Proposed Impacts
Due to engineering and grading requirements impacts to the streams and wetlands on this site cannot be
avoided. Minimization and significant mitigation measures are proposed.
Summary of Stream impacts
Streams with important aquatic function
mitigation is proposed
= + 1,580 if by piping and culverting
(0.15 acres)
Ephemeral/Intermittent Streams w/unimportant aquatic function
mitigation is not proposed = ± 6601f by general site development
(0.04 acres)
Summary of Wetland Impacts
Proposed Permit and Mitigation
= ± 1.24 acres by general site development
A mitigation plan is proposed for a "no net loss" of stream habitat, value, and function to the extent feasible
on this site.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 10, September 9, 1999
Avoidance_ Minimization_ and Mitigation
Due to the economic, engineering, and spatial requirements of a development of this magnitude, large
contiguous areas must be graded for building pads and parking. However the following Best Management
Practices will be employed to minimize impacts to Jurisdictional Waters. These will include:
a) Siltation Barriers; Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
b) Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect trees
C) Methods to prevent short term impacts will be inspected regularly and maintained during
construction of the project.
d) Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
Best Management Practices will include utilizing siltation trapping ponds and other erosion control
structures where appropriate. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish and
aquatic life such as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near surface
waters.
e) As required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, measures will be taken to prevent
"live" or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.
The developers are committed to creating an environments responsible project Minimization and
mitigation measures were developed based on discussions with the USACE, NCDWQ, and other federal and
state agencies. The plan and commitments made in this report reflect a positive response to the preliminary
discussions, determinations, and concerns of the regulatory agencies. Except for temporary construction and
development impacts, we believe that the proposed project with the proposed mitigation will not cause
significant cumulative impacts to the ecological functions or values of Jurisdictional Waters of the United
States.
mitigation Plan
The stormwater management and mitigation plan is proposed to provide for a "no net loss" of wetland
habitat, stream habitat, value, and function to the extent feasible. Approximately 1.24 .acres of wetlands will
be created in conjunction with the stormwater treatment facility. The extended detention wetland will be
developed within the project area. The proposed wetlands will be created to provide water storage, bank
stabilization, pollutant removal, and aquatic resource values as described in the Fourth Version - Guidance
for Rating Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
The 1.24 acres of wetlands will be created by converting upland to wetland in the lowest point on the site.
All stormdrainage from this project as well as off-site drainage must pass through this system. The purpose
of the wetland mitigation proposal is to develop areas of headwater wetlands in various forms which are
saturated within the root zone or inundated for a significant portion of the growing season. The zones will
be based on the expected saturation and inundation of the particular zones and tolerances and include
Bottomland Hardwoods, Scrub/Shrub, Emergent, and Aquatic Zones. The hydrology will be supported
by stormwater runoff; overland flow, and captured rainfall. This proposed wetland mitigation site is expected
to be inundated and saturated especially during the winter, early spring, and major rain events. Since the
sites occur within excavated areas and groundwater is also expected to contribute to creating wetland
hydrology, the system will also help protect the proposed stream mitigation site downstream.
The following hydrological zones are expected to occur within the wetland mitigation areas:
Semipermanently to permanently: area is inundated or saturated from 75% to 100% of the
growing season.
Regularly: area is inundated or saturated from 25% to 75% of the growing season.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 11, September 9, 1999
Seasonally: area is inundated or saturated from 12.5% to 25% of the growing season.
Irregularly: area is inundated or saturated from 5% to 12.5% of the growing season.
Vegetation - The majority of the species utilized will include Obligate (OBL) and Facultative Wet
(FACW) vegetation. To a lesser extent Facultative (FAC) species known to be prevalent in wetlands in the
local area will be utilized. Vegetation species that provide benefits to wildlife habitat will be incorporated
into the mix of species utilized.
High and low flows entering the wetland mitigation areas will first drain to a pool or forebay to
reduce velocity and begin distribution. The outlet from the pool will be stabilized with a rip-rap/gabion
structure. To allow a saturated soil development the outlet structure is designed to withhold at least 12".
Excess water will be discharged into the next wetland area, as necessary, if cells are developed, in a
controlled manner by first entering an open water forebay. Water will discharge to the wetland over level
spreaders to disperse the flow.
The bottom grades of the proposed wetland will be at a flat gradient of 0 %. Microtopographic
features such as small drainage ways and hummocks will be designed with the mitigation cells to disperse
and direct flow and to create the various hydrological zones. These will require field review, adjustment, and
refinement.
Channels within the wetland areas will be vegetated for a non-erosive designed based on a ten year
storm. Minor drainageways and/or level spreaders will diffuse the flow and will distribute water to various
sections of the wetland. Rock/stone filter check dams will be utilized to make minor flow adjustments within
the mitigation cell.
Water control structures will be provided to allow flexibility in depth control, where necessary. The
design of the outfall structures are planned to be as low maintenance and management as possible. However,
if the water depth is greater than anticipated than the outfall than provisions can be adjusted slightly to allow
a lesser volume to be stored.
Data will be collected from field observations in order to record the development of wetland
hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation as described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual criteria.
Normal hydrology will be considered the percent of time which the upper 12" exhibits inundation or
saturation. If the amount of precipitation is unusually high or low than the wetland hydrology success criteria
will be 5% to 12.5% of the growing season.
The extended stormwater wetland criteria described in NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices will be utilized to design the mitigation site:
- sized as one would using permanent pool depth of 3'
- detention of the runoff from V storm for a period of 2 to 5 days
- designed with a forebay
- 70% of the area of the permanent pool designed as a marsh with a depth of 0 - 18" with an almost
equal distribution of area ((35% and 35%) between 0"-9" and 9" to 18").
- 15% of the surface area will be a small pool where the outlet is located.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 12, September 9, 1999
- An open water pond will be developed in conjunction with this facility.
- Plants shall be selected from Table II.2
Mitigation - Wettand Preservation
In addition to the required wetland mitigation, the owner of the property will preserve 18 to 20 acres of
Upland Depression Swamp Forest, also known as the Providence Flats, which were identified by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program. These areas are important to the Natural Heritage of Mecklenburg
County according to Dr. James Matthews of the Habitat Assessment Restoration Program. They occur in
large areas of south, west, and northwest Mecklenburg County especially in conjunction with Iredell soils.
Mature xeric as well as mesic hardpan forests have been identified.
According to the Natural Heritage Program they are characterized by drainage that is hindered by a clay
hardpan. They are Palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded or saturated. The forest canopy is
dominated by mature Quercus phellos. Other trees that may be present include Q. michauxii, Carya ovata
and Carya carolinae-septentrionalis. Shrubs are usually sparse and may include Vaccinum fuscatum, Ilex
decidua, and Viburnum dentatum. Typical herbs include Carex species, and Climacium and Spagnum lescurii
(sphagnum moss). These plant communities, especially where less disturbed and mature are becoming less
and less common in the area. These communities are generally stable climaxes, maintained by their
hydrology, however they may be susceptible to disturbance caused by unusually prolonged flooding or by
drought. Many of the sites hold enough standing water seasonally and are important breeding sites for
amphibians. They provide feeding grounds for birds of prey; are important feeding grounds for migratory
birds such as the American woodcock and waterfowl. During a site visit a great blue heron was observed
feeding in the shallow inundated areas. Unstable and deteriorating situations are often inadvertently created
by adjacent urban development and parcelization. Large areas of these wetland habitats have already been
destroyed, or are under pressure from encroaching development. They are often mistaken as isolated or not
identified by unsuspecting landowners or design professionals. There are currently no required buffers to
protect these rare and sensitive communities. Therefore they highly susceptible to inadvertent, and
secondary impacts. The preserved wetlands will be protected by a conservation easement and managed by a
group designated by the owner for this purpose, such as the Catawba Lands Conservancy.
A meeting was held with Mark Cantrell of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and representatives of the
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission at the proposed preservation site in May, 1999, as well as the
subject development site. Based on their review, it was apparent that these agencies are enthusiastic about
the potential of preserving large areas of these sensitive sites as mitigation for the loss of a much smaller and
vulnerable wetland area on the subject development site.
Stormwater Management
A Stormwater Management Plan will be designed and implemented for the project to meet the 401 Water
Quality Certification requirements. Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces has the potential to degrade
water quality in all types of waters. Wet detention basins and/or extended stormwater detention facilities
shall be the primary treatment system. Properly designed stormwater treatment facilities have been proven to
be a viable solution to reduce pollution. They are efficient in removing suspended solids and other pollutants,
reducing peak runoff rates, and controlling downstream erosion. The Stormwater Management Plan will
include facilities that will attenuate the first inch of rainfall over a 24 hour period from most of the developed
portions of the site. Water will be released over a 2 to 5 day period. Discharge velocity of the outclass will
be less than 5 CFAs. Discharges from the wet detention ponds will outlet into the wetland areas The wet
ponds and/or extended stormwater wetlands will designed per the guidelines in NCDENR Stormwater Best
Management Practices, November 1995.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 13, September 9, 1999
The Stormwater Management Plan will also include:
A. Utilization of wetland mitigation areas for stormwater treatment. The design concepts will be based
on information derived from Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems by Thomas R Scholar.
Summaa
- Within the area required to serve as an Extended Detention Wetland the permanent pool of water will be
sized as closely as possible using- the Table 1 1 in the Stormwater Best Management Practices NCDENR
November 1995.
- Requirement of the detention of the runoff from the 1" storm for a period of 2 to 5 daL
- Area will include a forbear
- 70% of the area required will be designed as a marsh with a depth of 0 - 18",with an equal distribution of
area between 0" to 9" and 9" to 18" A small pool area (15% of the required surface area) will be located
near the outlet.
- It is expected that herbaceous and scrub/shrub wetland species will rapidly volunteer in the area Many o
the recommended species currently exist in the area to be utilized for this function Supplemental plantings
will be selected from Table 11.2 in the Stormwater Best Management Practices NCD -EM November, 1995
based on actual field conditions.
Stream Mitigation
Approximately 1,580 If. of stream restoration will be conducted on a channel through an agricultural site
downstream of the project by removing obstructions, re -vegetating and stabilizing banks,
re-establishing/enhancing the substrate, directing normal flow to reduce bank erosion, creating, enhancing
and repairing existing riffle and pool areas, and providing 50' riparian buffer along each side of the stream.
Areas to be restored will be flagged in the field prior to construction for review by the NCDWQ and the
USACE.
The work plan will include:
Inventory of current stream and riparian conditions.
Characterization of watershed/site impacts on stream and stream restoration
Development of plans for approval and construction.
The restored channel will be engineered to be as similar in natural features and morphology as to similar
streams in the area.
Restoration Goals:
1. Inventory existing biological and morphological characteristics
2. Create aquatic habitat
3. Create and establish riparian habitat
4. Establish floodplain storage

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 14, September 9, 1999
Based on a preliminary review it appears that an in-kind restoration is feasible in a manner which conserves
essential attributes of the stream segment, while allowing for the anticipated development. This requires
maintenance of the original creek gradient and thus length to the extent feasible. The intention is to employ
many of the techniques that incorporates bio -engineering methodology as developed by Rosgen.
Approximately 1580 if of stream will be created to be as similar in natural features and morphology to the
stream being relocated and similar streams in the area. The proposed channel design will include utilizing
natural/in kind substrate (sand/gravel/cobble/boulders) for the stream bottom, constructing meanders,
creating.riffle pools complexes, and utilizing plantings of herbaceous, scrub/shrub, and woody species along
the created streambank and riparian berm.
The following guidelines will be adhered followed to the extent feasible in creating the final plans for the
relocation.
1. The new channel design specifications will be calculated from field measurements of the stream prior to
restoration.
2. Floodplain integrity will be maintained throughout the length of the project.
3. The riffle -pool ratio will be evaluated and enhanced where feasible.
4. Point bars in the relocated channel should have a maximum of 7% slope.
5. Substrate in the restored stream will match the existing stream undisturbed streams in the vicinity. Natural
substrate will be used in the new channel to the extent feasible.
6. Streambanks will be properly sloped and protected by planting, live stakes, rip -rap, and other acceptable
techniques.
7. Insert structures will be installed for fish habitat enhancement.
8. The top 4" of sod or organic soil layer will be saved during channel construction and replanted along the
banks of the new channel.
9. Woody vegetation will be planted along the new channel.
14. All work on the relocated channel will be completed before water is diverted into it.
The restored channel will be engineered to influence the flow in the channel to minimize bank erosion,
enhance bank stabilization; and/or establish viable aquatic habitat. The following techniques are expected to
be utilized
1. Vortex rock weirs
2. "'WI rock weirs
3. Rock vanes
4. Native and rock revetments
5. Habitat improvement structures
a. boulder placement
b. deflectors
c. constrictors
d. etc.

Adijilo.
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 15, September 9, 1999
The banks will be stabilized utilizing bio -engineering systems developed by Mecklenburg County
Stormwater Services. These will include live staking and planting of the riparian berm A temporary seeding
mixture consisting of annual grasses will be installed for stabilization and erosion control before a suitable
permanent grass mixture is developed for installation. A warm season mixture would be most suitable for
dominance. These species may include Indian Grass, Little Bluest, Switch Grass, and Lehman's lovers_ Turf
grasses such as fescue and Bermuda will not be specified. Live staking and brush bundle materials will be
selected from the attached list.
Stream Mitigation Methodology
1. Subset topographic map of the Weddington USGS map with at least 3 stream segments and stream
catchments to form the basis of the design standards for the project stream. Channel width, meander
geometry, grade and bed characteristics will be assessed. Areas of rippling water, pooling water, and smooth
channel flow will be mapped in the reconnaissance in addition to the width, and geometry of the channel.
2. Photographs of the stream valley/bed at the three localities.
3. Field sketch of fluvial geomorphology. Summary of stream metrics, and recommendations for stream
design.
4. Cross-section and final stream design plan. The plan will include profiles, fluvial environments, stream
metrics, and material descriptions and volumetric estimates. In preparing the final plan, the design will
incorporate rippling water, pooling water, smooth channel flow segments. Channel width and meander
geometry's will be comparable to the other sites.
5. Bank stabilization and planting plan
The specific plans will include:
L Description of Proposed Mitigation Areas
2. Methods of Construction
3. Grading Plan
4. Planting Plan
5. Monitoring Report
6. Schedule
These stream will be constructed concurrently with grading operations involving permitted stream impacts.
Construction Methodology
Prior to any construction activity, the proposed wetland mitigation stimuli be clearly marked in the
field.
- Sedimentation and erosion control measures and other Best Management Practices shall be in
place. The wetland areas that are to be and created will be excavated as required. This excavated material
will be utilized to rough grade the large parking and building areas on the site. The removed soil will not be
used to fill any wetlands unless authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
After excavation the wetland areas will be backfilled to finish grades with suitable topsoil and
stabilized as necessary to create the various hydrological planting zones and drainage pattern. Stone
armoring and appropriate geo-textiles may be utilized plus seeding and planting. Runoff will then be directed

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 16, September 9, 1999
into the area. Under normal conditions for the area, the soils are expected to be inundated and/or saturated
durine the winter months and early spring for a period of at least 5 to 12.5% of the growing season.
Soils shall be topsoil or stockpiled suitable wetland soil and have a minimum of 40% organic
content. Soils shall be spread and compacted to 90%. Eighteen inches to two feet of topsoil and shall be
spread and adequately compacted as a planting medium throughout the mitigation cell. Note that
excavation in the proposed wetland areas should be below finish grade prior to placement of topsoil.
Before placement of the topsoil, the subgrade and hydrological conditions must be assessed.
Manipulation of soil depth will be required to create micro -topography within mitigation cell. Field
modifications may be required based on actual site conditions.
The wetland mitigation areas shall be stabilized with grasses or other herbaceous materials for at
least one growing season to observe hydrological, soil development and vegetation which is volunteering.
Adjustments may then be made as required to the water control structures, spillways, and grading as
required. Installation of the wetland materials should not take place until the site's hydrology has stabilized
and discharge structures have been adjusted as necessary.
The entire mitigation cell shall be completely impounded to fully saturate soils prior to adjusting
discharge structures and establishing hydrological zones.
Watering to maintain moist soils throughout all elevations may be necessary during the first
growing season.
Vegetation
Planting includes of a diversity of saturation tolerant tree species which are also high in wildlife value. The
planting plan will also encourage a diverse canopy and mid -story vegetation. The primary criteria upon
which plant selection is based is the duration of soil saturation. Soil saturation is expected to occur at a rate
similar to adjacent wetland and / or riparian areas and is expected to be for a minimum of 12 consecutive
days and a maximum of 52 consecutive days under normal circumstances during the early part of growing
season. Tree species tolerant of these hydrological conditions will be specified in the mitigation areas.
Forested mitigation sites will be planted at an initial density of approximately 500 trees woody stems per
acre by utilizing a combination of bare root seedlings and/or larger vegetation. Scrub/shrub mitigation sites
will be planted at an initial density of approximately 1000 woody stems per acre by utilizing a combination of
bare root seedlings and/or larger vegetation. In addition to woody species, herbaceous plants will be will be
planted in an organized pattern or groupings of a similar hydrophytic zone. These zones adjacent to surface
waters improve water quality by filtering runoff, trapping sediment, absorbing nutrients, and provide wildlife
habitat and a food source for aquatic organisms, amphibians, birds and other wildlife.
Vegetation will be selected from the following general lists.
Scrub/Shrub Zone
Alnus spp.
Cornusamomum
Sambucus canadensis
Itea virginica
Ilex decidua
Viburnum dentatum
Bottomland Hardwood - Forested Zone
Carya spp. Diospyros virginiana
Nyssa sylvatica Quercus species
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Lindera benzoin
Others that are approved
Frax. pennsylvanica
Taxodium distichum

E-71
W. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, W. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 17, September 9, 1999
Herbaceous Zone
Zone 1 -Wetland areas in temporarily saturated soils or subject to occasional and brief inundation
Agrostis alba (Red Top) Polygonum spp.(Smartweed)
Juncus effusus (Soft Rush) Eleocharis spp.(Spikerush)
Zone 2 - Wetland areas prone to persistent flooding or ponding
Moist to I Foot of Water
Three Square Bulrush
Sedge species
Shallow Water Plants
Sweet Flag
Pickerel Weed
Creeping Spike Rush
Lizard Tail
Arrow -Arum
Others
Carex species (Sedge)
Others as specified
Soft Rush
Others
Duck Potato
Other plants may be selected from Table 11.2 in Stormwater Best Management Practices, November 1995.
Tree Planting Zones
Planting zones are based on progressive toleration of saturated soil conditions.
AB - Transitional Species, and species which tolerate minimum
duration of soil saturation
C/D - Saturation - Tolerant tree species
Forested Zone - Tree Planting Schedule
* No more than 20% of the trees required to be installed shall be of one species to create diversity. Trees
shall be located in a naturalistic pattern. The minimum size shall be 1 yr. bare root seedlings. The size
specified below is recommended to increase survivability. Additional or alternate selections may be
necessary based on availability, site specific data, and cost factors. All of the listed species shall be utilized
unless approved otherwise.
Zone
Scientific Name
Size and Condition
Spacing
Common Name
A/B
Diospyros virginiana
min. 1 year bare root seedling
9'
On Center
Persimmon
C/D
Frax. pennsylvanica
min. I year bare root seedling
9'
On Center
Green Ash
C/D
Nyssa sylvatica
min. 1 year bare root seedling
9'
On Center
Blackgum
C/D
Quercus lyrata
min. 1 year bare root seedling
9'
On Center
Overcup Oak
A/B
Quercus michauxii
min. 1 year bare root seedling
9'
On Center
Swamp Chestnut Oak

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr_ John R Dorney, Mr. Mke Parker - NCDWQ
Page 18, September 9, 1999
A/B Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
AIB Quercus shumardii
Shumard's Oak
C/D Taxodium distichum
Baldcypress
min. 1 year bare root seedling
min. 1 year bare root seedling
min. 1 year bare root seedling
Scrub/Shrub Planting Zone Schedule
9' On Center
9' On Center
9' On Center
Botanical Name
Common Name
Size
T O/C.
Sagitaria latifolia
Notes
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.
Saururus cemus
Lizard's Tail
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.
Nuphar luteum
Ceph. occidentalis
Button Bush
1411-
18"
Plants
6'-7'
O/C
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
14"
- 18"
Plants
6-7'
O/C
Betula nigra
River Birch
14"
- 18"
Plants
6'-7'
O/C
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
14"
- 18"
Plants
6'-7'
O/C
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
14"
- 18"
Plants
6'-7'
O/C
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
14"
- 18"
Plants
6'-7'
O/C
Others that are approved
** No more than 20% of the scrub/shrub materials required to be installed shall be of one species to create
diversity and shall be located in a pattern and directed by the planner. The minimum size shall be 1 yr. bare
root seedlings. The size specified below is recommended to increase survivability. Additional or alternate
selections may be necessary based on availability, site specific data, and cost factors. At least six varieties
shall be utilized.
EmgMent Zone/Aquatic Schedule
Botanical Name Common Name Size Notes
Rushes/Sedges*
Juncus effusus Smooth Needle Rush 2 yr. peat pot T OIC.
Scirp. americanus Common Three Square 2 yr. peat pot T O/C.
Acoris calamus Sweet Flag 2 yr. peat pot Y O/C.
* Planting shall be in naturalistic / random clumps to encourage diversity. Size at planting and variety may
vary based on availability, cost, and aesthetic objectives. Equal proportions shall be utilized. Final layout of
clusters to be field determined based on final surface and ponding conditions.
Shallow Water Plants*
Peltandra virginica
Arrow Arum
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.
Sagitaria latifolia
Duck Potato
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.
Saururus cemus
Lizard's Tail
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.
Nuphar luteum
Spatterdock
2 yr. peat pot
T O/C.

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 19, September 9, 1999
* Planting shall be in naturalistic / random clumps to encourage diversity. Size at planting and variety may
vary based on availability. cost, and aesthetic objectives. Equal proportions shall be utilized. Final lavout of
clusters to be field determined based on final surface and ponding conditions. Herbaceous species will be
planted in 25 to 50 cm diameter clusters at a density of 1000 clusters per acre or will be seeded with a
wetland seed mix at a rate which will result in a coverage of at least 100 stems per square meter upon
germination.
Survival rates of seeding, roots, and/or individual plants will be explored for each species selected based on
availability, site specific data, and cost factors. All new plantings will consist FACW and OBL species.
Planting will be conducted in the spring and the fall. Annual ryegrass, millet or red top grass will be utilized
in order to provide temporary stabilization during the summer and winter months or until planting times
become available.
eneral Notes for Herbaceous Zones for Littoral Zones
1. Roots may be substituted for pots or containers, however spacing shall be reduced to
approximately 1 each per ST or less. Changes shall be reviewed for approval with the USACE and
NCDWQ.
2. Area shape, water depth, and drainage pattern of littoral plantings may vary due to actual site
conditions. Minor modifications are allowed in accordance with plan objectives.
3. For littoral zones, depth of planting area should not exceed 3'. At least 50% of the area should be
less than 1 foot in depth.
4. If applicable, the littoral area should have a minimum width of 10' feet. The maximum slope is 4:1.
The preferred slope is 8:1 to 10:1.
5. Plants should be spaced 2' to 3' apart and grouped to decrease competition between species.
Plantings to be placed in naturalized patterns and clumps. An equal proportion of each species shall be used.
6. The area should be planted when the soil is moist or saturated but not inundated. .
7. Soils shall be topsoil or silt/clay laden and are to have a minimum of 40% organic content. Do not
use soil from a wetland or bottomland if it is populated with cattail or other undesirable species. In that case,
obtain soil from an upland source.
8. Plants below the water surface or in saturated soil will require hand -planting.
Timing of emergent planting species should be verified based on final selection and plant type.
The contractor may make minor field modifications to not plant emergent species in deep water. Species that
can tolerate these deep water depths will colonize deeper water after being planted in shallower zones.
Seeding Specification for Herbaceous and Cover Crop in Wetland Kitiga tion Sites
Zone 1 - Wetland areas in tem on rarity saturated soils or subject to occasional and brief inundation
Dates Types Rate
April 1 - Jul. 15 Red Top Grass
Smartweed
7 lbs/acre
201bs /acre

Ak�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 20, September 9, 1999
Jul. 16 - Sept. l Temporary Crop
Jap. Millet or Sorghum 20 lbs /acre
(to be followed by permanent mixture)
Sept. 2 - Nov. 1 Smartweed
Red Top Grass
20 lbs /acre
7 lbs/acre
Nov. 1 - March 31 Temporary Crop 40 lbs /acre
Wheat or Winter Rye
(to be followed by permanent mixture)
The following species may be substituted:
- Bidens connata (Beggar's Tick) and other Biden's species
- Leersia oryzoides (Rice Cutgrass)
- Panicum viratum (Switchgrass)
- Peltandra virginica (Arrow Arum)
Seeding Instructions
1) Seed in the dry period
2) use of a filler, such as sand to dilute the seed to ensure uniform ground coverage when broadcasting
3) tree and shrub planting should be completed first before seeding
4) Pure live seed shall be specified and approved prior to planting.
Herbaceous species may with a wetland seed mix which will result in a coverage of at least 100 stems per
square meter upon germination. Subsitutions may be permitted with approval. Other native grasses or
annuals may be selected. No fescue will be used in wetland areas. Annual grasses shall be utilized for
stabilization on surrounding slopes within Mitigation Area rather than perennials to allow natural succession.
If a perennial is required for erosion control than a mixture shall be selected that allows natural volunteering
to occur.
Fertilization - Herbaceous and Wood&Plant Species
1) Use Osmacote fertilizer or approved equal. For spring planting, use 18-6-12, eight to nine month release.
For winter and fall planting, use 18-5-11, twelve to fourteen month release.
2) If planting is under water, use Agriform 20-10-5 two year release 10 gram planting tablets.
3) Fertilize at time of planting
Recommended Ouantities of Fertilizer for various Herbaceous Plant Materials (Garbisch
Dormant propagule
15 grams Osmacote
or 1 ea. 20-10-5 lOg Agriform tablet
growing bareroot
15 grams Osmacote
or 1 ea. 20-10-5 lOg Agriform tablet
container/fiber pot
30 grams Osmacote
or 3 ea. 20-10-5 10g Agriform tablet
plug (seedling)
15 grams Osmacote
or 1 ea. 20-10-5 10g Agriform tablet
plug (collection)
30 grams Osmacote
or 3 ea. 20-10-5 lOg Agriform tablet

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 21, September 9, 1999
Recommended Quantities of Fertilizer for various Woody.Species Gar isch)
1 quart container 30 grams Osmacote or 20-10-5 lOg Agriform/Manufacturer rate
1 gallon container 90 grams Osmacote or 20-10-5 109 Agriform/Manufacturer rate
* 30 additional grams for each additional gallon
plug (seedling) 15 grams Osmacote or 1 ea. 20-10-5 lOg Agriform tablet
Monitoring
Monitoring of wetland creation activities will be performed to evaluate the mitigation site relative to the
success criteria. Annual reports will be prepared which summarizes the data collected in the field and notes
trends. Photographs at fixed stations will be taken to document the trends and changes occurring at the sites.
These reports will be furnished to the Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Vegetation Monitoring
Four sample plots will be identified. The plots will monitor at least 30' radius to record the number
and species of each surviving woody stem and the percent aerial cover of the three most dominant species.
Within the 30' radius area a 10' radius area will be established to record the three dominant herbaceous
species.
Mitigation areas will be monitored bi-annually during March/April and August/September to
measure survival rate, species diversity, growth.
Identify upland species and invasive species to be removed such as honeysuckle, blackberry, rose,
poison ivy, kudzu, ligustrum, etc.
Vegetation Success Criteria
At least 320 woody stems per acre are surviving. If this criteria is not met, the area is not
considered to be successful and maintenance will need to be performed on the area in order to provide the
required quantify. A five year monitoring period will be conducted for forested plant communities.
A minimum 75% cover after five years is required for herbaceous plant cover.
Hvdroloav Monitorin
Monitoring wells will be designed and placed in accordance with the specifications in U.S. Corps of
Engineers, Installing Monitoring Wells / piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-lA-3.1, August
1993). Monitoring Wells will be set to a depth 24 inches below the surface soil. These monitoring wells will
be imbedded within vegetation sampling plots to provide representative coverage within each of the
ecosystem types. Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria. It will be observed on a monthly or as needed basis for at
least the first year in order to establish a record of the hydrology throughout the year. At least four
monitoring wells will be established for the wetland mitigation areas.
Hydrological Success Criteria
Saturation or inundation for at least 12.5% of the growing season at lower landscape positions during
average climatic conditions is the target hydrological characteristic. Upper landscape areas may exhibit
inundation and/or saturation between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season. If wetland parameters are

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 22, September 9, 1999
marginal, consultation with USACE personnel will be conducted to determine the jurisdictional extent in
transitional areas. The data collected during the monitoring period will be utilized to evaluate the success of
the mitigation areas. The success criteria will be as follows:
Soil saturation within 12 inches of the surface for a minimum of approximately 12 consecutive days
during the early part of the growing season.
Observed evidence of inundation or saturation within the root zone for 5% to 12.5% of the
growing season.
Establish at least one hydrology indicator per the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual in the
sample plot or match adjacent riparian habitat surroundings.
Establishment of at least one hydric soil characteristic.
These Vegetative, Soil, and Hydrological Characteristics must be met to determine success of the wetland
mitigation. If the mitigation is determined to be unsuccessful the following one or more of the following
contingency plans will be implemented.
1) Selected re -installation of vegetation, thinning, maintenance, and/or acceptance
2) Extended monitoring periods
3) Hydrological modifications or manipulation and/or
4) Off-site mitigation sites and/or.
5) Acceptable alternative form of mitigation.
Report Submittal
An "as -built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by the community type, and
sample plot locations will be provided after completion of planting. A review of the actual design, densities,
and quantities will also be included and will be provided within 90 days of completion of planting. Submitted
reports will document the sample plot locations, along with photographs which illustrate site conditions.
Monitoring Reports will include:
1) species and quantity of each surviving woody stern
2) Estimated percent aerial cover of the three dominant species
3) Representative photographs
4) Depth of water table during early part of the growing season
5) Hydric soil observations and other hydrological characteristics.
Field data will be recorded on a monitoring data form and submitted along with representative photographs
in a annual monitoring report. This will be submitted to the USACE and the NCDWQ. After the fifth year of
monitoring, a summary report and as-builts will be famished for review and discussion regarding compliance
of the project with conditions of the permit and to determine the need for future monitoring or
modifications.
Operations and Maintenance Plan
The Mitigation areas will be monitored bi-annually to identify maintenance requirements that will encourage
the successful development of the wetland mitigation sites and function of the stormwater quality facilities.
This will include the following:

Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 23, September 9, 1999
a) Vegetation management
b) Semi-annual inspections
c) Debris check after storm events
d) Establishment of a benchmark for sediment removal with specific elevations
e) Designation of a responsible parry
1) Vegetation Management
The presence of invasive species that will effect the positive development of the wetlands shall be identified
at the monitoring periods and will be removed by the representative of the responsible party. These species
are likely to include honeysuckle, blackberry, rose, poison ivy, kudzu, eleagnus, ligustrum, cattails, etc.
Vegetation may be removed by physical or by the use of an approved herbicide such as "Round -up",
"Rodeo" or equivalent.
2) Inspections
Mitigation areas will be monitored bi-annually during March/April and August/September and/or storm
events to determine the need for maintenance such as the removal of debris and/or repairs to the mitigation
site such as those caused by erosion.
3) As-builts - Benchmark for Sediment Removal
Field adjustment is expected during the construction of the restoration and stormwater quality basins. An
"as -built" plan drawing of the area will include a benchmark for sediment removal will also be established for
the storm water quality wet detention basins. Removed sediment will be transported to an upland site and
stabilized. In some cases it may be appropriate to utilize the appropriate sediment such as washed topsoil to
enhance or modify the development of the wetland areas. This will be determined on a case by case basis and
will be included in the monitoring report. The following requirements have been developed for the ponds
and stormwater wetlands to be signed by the owner.

17-1
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 24, September 9, 1999
POND AND STORMWATER MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Name
❑sible Party:
and title)
Project Number.
Phone Number
Inspect monthly, or after every runoff producing rainfall event, whichever comes first
A. Remove debris from the trash rack
B. Check and clear orifice of any obstructions.
C. Check the pond side slopes; remove trash, repair eroded areas before the next rainfall
event.
D. Check the vegetated filter for sediment accumulation, erosion and proper operation of the
flow spreader mechanism. Repair as necessary.
Quarterly
A. Inspect the collection system (i.e., catch basins, piping, grassed swales) for proper
functioning. Clear accumulated trash from basin grates and basin bottoms, and check
piping for obstructions.
B. Check pond inlet pipes for undercutting, replace rip -rap, and repair broken pipes.
Every 6 months
A. Remove accumulated sediment from the bottom of the outlet structure.
B. Based on establish benchmarks, check the pond depth at various points in the pond. If
depth is reduced to 75% of original design depth, sediment will be removed to at least
original design depth.
General
A. Mow side slopes, not including normally submerged vegetated shelf, according to the
season unless alternative plan is approved by NCDWQ for slopes that are to be allowed to
naturalize. Maximum grass height will be 6", unless alternative plan is approved by
NCDWQ for slopes that are to be allowed to naturalize.
B. Cattails and other indigenous wetland plants, are encouraged along the pond perimeter;
however they must be removed when they cover the entire surface area of the pond.
C. The orifice is designed to draw down the pond in 2-5 days. If the drawdown is not
accomplished in that time, the system may be clogged. The source must be found and
eliminated.
D. All components of the detention pond system must be kept in good working order.

Ak�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 25, September 9, 1999
POND AND STORMWATER MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
(CONTUNL'ED)
V. Special Requirements
I, hereby acknowledge that I am the financially
responsible parry for the maintenance of this detention pond and stormwater wetland. I will perform the
maintenance as outlined above, as part of the Certification of Compliance with Stormwater Regulations
received for this project.
Signature: Date:
a Notary Public for the State of County of
do hereby certify that
personally appeared
me this day of 19___, and acknowledged the due execution of the
ng instrument. Witness my hand and official seal,
commission expires
SEAL

A6�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 26, September 9, 1999
Construction Schedule
Excavate unauthorized fill in wetlands and
floodway - 15 - 60 days after issuance
Install and Maintain Sedimentation and
Erosion Control
Staking, Survey; Detailing of Stream
Wetland Cells;
Grading of Wetland Areas and restoration
of stream
Observe Hydrology of Reference Area
Research plant availability and
costs
Planting (may vary based on species)
and fine grading
15 days after issuance
- 60 days after issuance
60 - 90 days after issuance
90 days - 180 days
upon issuance
seasonally dependent
(planting of mitigation areas will occur during the late fall and winter following the establishment of
hydrology within cells)
Monitoring - 180 after issuance
Monitoring will begin when planting of the is completed and continue semi-annually for 5 years. Mitigation
areas will be monitored bi-annually during March/April and August/September to measure survival rate,
species diversity, growth. First monitoring report will be conducted no later than March/April, 2001,
provided a permit has been issued by April 2000.
Changes in the planting schedule may be required due to hydrological factors such as site and weather
conditions. If planting is delayed then the soil will be stabilized with an annual wetland grass mixture until
suitable hydrology has been established for planting. Changes in the schedule will be reported to the USACE
and NCDWQ for review and approval. Plants that volunteer will be evaluated as to there suitability with the
mitigation plan to determine if they should be removed, remain or be relocated.
Water Management Plan
In order to determine the quantity of water available for the mitigation sites system, a water budget analysis
will be performed. Inputs to the system include precipitation, surface runoff from the site and adjoining
tracts. Groundwater sources are also likely. The objective of the water management plan is to provide
periodically saturated and flooded conditions to the created wetland system. Once this is accomplished the
wetland area with appropriate grading should provide a variety of diverse and suitable wetland habitats. The
water management plans are a essential part of the overall stormwater management plan. The wet detention
basins will also be used as a method of controlling peak flows and as a method of diverting flows into the
wetland mitigation areas. The constructed wetlands on this site will be associated with the contributing
watershed of perennial to intermittent streams and runoff from impervious surfaces. Runoff will be conveyed
to the wetland as a point discharge. Regular and low flows from the wet detention pond will be discharged
directly to a forebay, plunge pool or level spreader.

A6�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mace Parker - NCDWQ
Page 27, September 9, 1999
The flow will then be diffused in a sheet flow fashion. Sheet flow will disperse over the wetland mitigation
area before following swales which will distribute flows at a low velocity The bottom grades of the
proposed wetland will be at a flat gradient of 0 to 1% slope. Water will enter the mitigation site into a
forebay and/or plunge pool and allowed to spread by sheet flow over the area. Small drainageways and
hummocks will be designed to disperse and direct flow and to create the various hydrological zones. To
allow the saturated soil development the outlet structures designed to withhold at least 12". Excess water
will be discharged into the next mitigation area in a controlled manner. If the water depth is greater or less
than anticipated than the outfall can be adjusted slightly to allow a greater or lesser volume to be stored.
Percolation rates are not expected to be rapid due to the dense subsoils. Provisions have been made allow
excess water to runoff into adjacent channels or wetlands. Small stone filter rock check dams or other
obstructions will be strategically placed to make minor adjustments to drainage flow in order to increase or
decrease duration of flooding or saturation.
The outflow structure will be temporary stone filter rip -rap weir structure installed in conjunction with a low
lying berm. This will allow flexibility to make adjustments and detention of or the removal of excess water
until a stable level is observed. Structures will be monitored and inspected regularly throughout the
construction period, and also during the proposed vegetative monitoring periods. It was determined that
high flows diverted to the wetland area may cause severe erosion. Therefore routing of high flows directly to
a designed channel will be necessary.
The quantity of water available during the early part of the growing season appears to indicate that adequate
water will be available to support wetland hydrology requirements.
Protection from Future Development
Upon completion of construction of the wetland sites as - built drawings will be prepared. The survey will
include:
- boundary of each area
- finish grades
- location of monitoring wells, if necessary and sample plots
- drainage control features
- Other significant information, as required
Fencing may be installed by the owner to protect the mitigation sites.
The restored, preserved , and created wetlands will be protected from future impacts by the applicant or by a
group designated by the applicant for this purpose. Development of these areas will be deed restricted in
accordance with restrictive covenants which will be developed for approval by the USACE and/or NCDWQ.
Restrictive Covenants will include the following information:
- The area shall remain in its natural condition in perpetuity
- Acreage of wetland preservation area, wet detention ponds, and created wetlands
- Prohibition of the placement of utilities, filling, dredging, construction, or other activities.
- A permanent easement for the purpose of constructing, monitoring, and maintaining the mitigation
area and preserved wetlands.
- Obligations if monitoring indicates that the area has not met the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual criteria.
- A biological benchmark will be established at the existing wetlands to be saved.

A�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 28, September 9, 1999
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Federally listed plant and animal species with endangered or threatened status are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified two endangered species -
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
Schweinitz's sunflower thrives in full sun characteristic of succession fields, margins, and forested openings.
Portions of the site are currently in old field succession and secondary succession. Based on soil types this
site was determined to be potentially conducive to the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower. The site has been
surveyed by Dr. Jim Matthews of the Habitat Assessment Restoration Proeram Their survey indicates that
Schweinitz's sunflower is not present in the project area_
The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel which prefers shaded areas either in a ponded portion of a
small stream or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. Primary habitat are waters less than three
feet deep with a soft mud, muddy sand, or shady gravelly substrate. It is normally restricted to protected
silted areas or under banks especially associated with obstructions such as stumps or fallen trees. Its current
distribution according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service is limited to portions of two streams -- Goose
Creek and Waxhaw Creek -- and a small river originating from rural areas in Union County. Therefore it is
does not occur on this site. The USFWS was contacted on December 28, 1996, as required.
State Protected Species
The Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis) is a fish that inhabits small streams such as those found in the
project area. This species has a federal status of Proposed Special Concern and a state status of Special
Concern. The species prefers small clear streams of less than 15' width with moderate to swift current and a
sand/gravel benthic composition. It apparently tolerates a wide range of water quality conditions and
vegetation types adjacent to the streams and appears resistant to pollution. (E. Menhinick). Therefore, strict
adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be maintained during the construction
period in order to control degradation of water quality. The stream on this site however was found to be
intermittent based on an analysis during the summer months. Therefore this species is not likely to occur on
this site.
Cultural Resources
There are no indications of any existing structures or archaeological sites on listed on or potentially eligible
for the National Register within the study area. The site was evaluated by Thomas Hargrove of
Archaeological Research Consultants, and the report has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation
Office for concurrence.
Aquatic Habitat
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of headwater wetlands and intermittent tributaries of Flat
Branch. A variety of wildlife is supported by these systems including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
fish, insects, mollusks, and crustaceans. Therefore strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan will be maintained during the construction period in order to control degradation of water
quality downstream and protect the areas to be preserved. Short term construction impacts, primarily
stream sedimentation will affect aquatic habitat, however this will be minimized to the extent practicable to
promote rapid recovery. Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved sedimentation and erosion
control plan. Best Management Practices will include utilizing siltation trapping ponds and other erosion
control structures where appropriate. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish and aquatic
life such as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near surface waters. Also, as

A�
Mr. Steve Chapin - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney, Mr. Mike Parker - NCDWQ
Page 29, September 9, 1999
required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, measures will be taken to prevent "live" or fresh
concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened Aquatic resources are
expected to be enhanced through the restoration of wetland areas that flood and pond for longer durations.
CONCLUSION
The 52 acre development will provide important economic benefits to the region. Based on the value of the
jurisdictional waters and wetlands on this site and with respect to the local neighborhoods, the developer has
chosen to balance the site's economic viability with its environmental value and permitability. The goal of the
proposed stormwater treatment and mitigation measures is to help balance the environmental consequences
of this development by restoring and creating beneficial wetland or riparian habitat and enhancing and
preserving the Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. remaining on the site. The mitigation sites will be preserved
by the applicant or by a group designated by the owner for this purpose. They will be managed as a wetland
system of high value.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
Professional Wetland Scientist
NC Landscape Architect #578
cc: Mr. David Haggart
Childress Klein Properties
2800 One First Union Center
301 S. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6021

II
CHARLOTTE,.
MINT HILL
MATTHEWS
r
U WEDDINGTON
REGIONAL. LOCATION MAP
Providence Road at I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #

A�
I -48.,i l.", 10 Iry I tKUHANGE EXIT 57 or
LOCATION MAP .
Providence Road at I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. 4

n
I
V.
9 L %�
mso• •�• �: •II, � \cam=•
\ 36 6 II• �r�,
� �t; . I • - -_ p •ii � o
- �SKe•••' S 71 O
II 700, 3880..
de
n swill _ Q G°O
D ee
Cady
.Tak x{ 0
r
NGNS° o O pyo - 3879
$N\
3628 441
02
VV
USGSP - WEDDINGTON 3878
Providence Road at I-485 Property
m 630 Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action LD. 4

A&
-02

�M/a ,OOZ - OV08 30N�IQIAOZi,Jj
A
a
0
U

.3NY, Y—
I
0AD
,
«
�.
�
... „
.
� -
��
.
~
�
|
r
!

Q
Q
z
O
U
w
cn
W
Q
0
D
W
cn
O
CL
O
CL
CD
N
11
T
w
0
Q
c�
O
z
ax
X
LU
In
m
z
O
U
W
cn

' ' /% a _'''Ul � '' / j / ���' \c�r�.J} I :�� j G �, -��- . •.. .. %Ill" '�� `_ 1
_ 600==
v ON—SITE WETLAND MITIGATION SITE �:.• -
i8 STREAM MITIGATION SITE au en u
�. o. 11 c£ • .6 ;1F Q O
1-485
o \1pR�
I • � r'' ' n 1
e 1 fQ so
a Cady O
Lak {`
P`r0 6 YM 650 1 l
it
O t
i
1 1110 3628 1 O
it
r
UPLAND DEPRESSION SWAMP FOREST D . " _ s02
" WETLAND PRESERVATION SITE, -
ITE, /
-
APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 20 ACRES
PROJECTSITE 1
WrIGATION SITE LOCATION/USGS
Providence Road at 1485 Property +
n County, NC
Charlotte, Mecklenburg ty,
Cluldress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. 4

.. . . . . COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
. ... . . ....
51
CAL -L
A
N TYNE
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STREAM REST0RATIQN SITE
4eB"
N
S40
. . . ....... ...
.2
yt
.P�
xi
0`00,j, E OT1TI
'.E
UPLAND DEPRESSION SWAMP I
WETLAND PRESERVATION SITE
CHARLOTTE GOLF LINKS".
....................
........ .......
U a
,­.Mv
. . . . . . . . . . .
0_
PR OvI;DVNqE c., V4TRY
SITE S -r LOCATIONNRCS:
NUMOATIO. N 1
Providence Road at I-485 Properlry
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September. l0, 1999
Action LD. 4

YD DEPRESSION SWAMP FOREST
s: Poorly drained upland flats or depressions. Usually on broad upland
® but occasionally on high ridge tops.
Soils: Various soils with drainage hindered by a clay hardpan or by shallow
rock. Typical series are Iredell (Typic Hapludalt), Misenheimer (Aquic Dystro-
chrept), Xirksey (Aquic Hapludult), Leaksville (Typic Albaqualf), and Picture
(Abruptic Argiaquoll).
Hydrology: Palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded or saturated.
During dry periods water may be unavailable to plants because of restricted
rooting depth and because the impermeable layer has kept the subsoil dry.
Vegetationr Forest canopy usually dominated by Quercus phellos or Q. lyrate.
Other trees may be present, including Q. michauxi.i, Liquidambar atyraciflua,
Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tullpifers, Nyssa biilora, Quercus bicolor, carya
ovata, and occasional upland trees, particularly Quercus stellata and Carya
carolinae-septentrlonatlix. Shrubs are usually sparse. species may include
vaccinium fuscatum (atrococcum), V. corymbosum, Cephalanthus occidentallip Ilex
decidua, and viburnum dentatum. Herbs are usually sparse, with Carex species
being most typical. other species include Gtlyearis septentrionalis, 'Funcus
effuaus, Selagrinalla apoda, Spiranthes cernua, Eleoch*r o tenuls, and various
bottomland spring ephemerals such as Claytonia virginica. The mosses Cl.imaciurn
americanum and Sphagnum lescaril are often abundant. In disturbed areas, vines,
primarily Lonlcera japonica, Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans, Campsie radicanrs,
and Vibe rotunda.folia, may proliferate.
Dynamics: These communities are generally stable climaxes, maintained by their
hydrology. They may be susceptible to disturbance caused by unusually prolonged
flooding or by drought.
Range: Scattered throughout the eastern and central Piedmont and possibly the
upper Coastal Plain.
Associations: Typically associated with Xeric Hardpan Forest and Basic Oak --
Hickory Forest but may grade into other upland forest types. Sometimes occurs
with Upland Poole.
Distinguishing Features% Upland Depression Swamp Forests are distinguished from
Upland Poole by having a closed tree canopy and a shorter hydroperiod. They are
distinguished from Hillside Seepage Boge and Low Elevation Seeps by having
ponded rain and runoff water rather than seepage, as well as by different
species composition. The boundary with surrounding upland communities is the
point at which upland plant species become dominant, over wetland species, There
are Sometimes substantial tones of mixed domigance.
Variation: The canopy dominants are relatively constant but sites may vary in
associated species and in the lower strata. Differences in soils, particularly
between acidic and circumneutral types, are probably important in determining
composition, as is hydroperiod. Frye (1989), however, found no effect of soil
chemistry on sites on,iredell soils. He noted that the surface horizons were
acidic and that bases in the subsoil were unavailable because of the dryness
there caused by low permeability. WETLAND PRESERVATION SITE DESCRIPTION
Providence Road at I-485 Property
197 Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date : September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #

Comments: Sites which hold enough standing water seasonally may be important
breeding sites for amphibians.
Upland Depression Swamp Forests are part of a characteristic suite of
communities on mafic igneous or metamorphic rock, along with Xeric Hardpan
Forest and Basic Oak --hickory Forest. The high bass levels in mafic rocks
contribute to the formation of montmorillonite clays which inhibit drainage.
upiand Depression swamp yorasta alao form over acidic: shalva, and occasionally
on harder rocks.
Rare Plant Speciess Vascular -- puercus bicolor.
Synonyme:
Gabbro Depression.
Bottomland hardwoods (in part).
Examples: '
Frogsboro Upland Depression Forest, Caswell Game Land, Caswell Co.
✓ Providence Plate Swamp, Mecklenburg Co.
Badin Upland Depression Swamps, Uwharrie national Foreet, Montgomery Co.
(Matthews 1979, Wells 1974).
Uwharris Mafic Rock Area, Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery Co.
South Butner Diabase swamp, Granville Co.
Goshen Gabbro Forest, Granville Co. (LeGrand 1986).
Donnelley Dog site, Chatham Co. (weakley 1985).
Meadow Flats, Duke Forest, Orange co. (Ohmann 1980).
Referances: Frye (1989), LeGrand (1986), Matthews (1979), Ohmann (1980),
Weakley (1985), Wells (1974).
Sample Plant Communities:
Quercus phellos.
Quercus phellos-g. lyrata.
Q. lyrata.
carya ovata-Quercus bicolor.
4uercus phel2os-9. bicolor.
Quercus phelloolspha"um lescuril..
HILLSIDE SEEPAGE BOG
sitest Piedmont areas which are constantly saturated by seepage. Small areae
on slopes or edges of bottomlands.
Soile: wet mucky soils. soils are mapped as Cecil (Typic Hapludult), Colfax
(Aquic Fragiudult), and "mixed alluvial" but undoubtedly represent inclusions in
these map units.
Hydrology: Paluetrine, permanently saturated to intermittently dry.
198

w
Q
J
a
t�
Z
w
w
w
Z_
O
z
LU
0
Z
a
H
O
}
a
J

m
m
z
CL
z
_O
H
U
w
U)
w
J
LL
LL
J
O
O
CL
W
J
LL
LL
d'
Q
I -
z
J
J
U)
Y
U
O
w
cn
w
i -
Q
w
Q
w
Q
C7
_z
J
O
O
CL
Y
a
m
z
O
z
O
H
Q
W
O
w
z
Q
R w
Q m
CL z
Q
2 �
rn Q
J Q.
m �
V7 Z
W Q
Z
a
Z
H
El
@ V
� Z
cc
o -t4
Va,.VUA
A
0

h �
'^ Z5
V-;4 O
® g +�
Jtaec �r •79r.iog
cove
�Aw
• �' J].tldZ AC. ao 1 P•
F.
"'Toys„ . � • !+' "" 1� y PS'J..tO
�1 T
y ... ��.,� u'3 CN aL � • T Cy e°=•tr
' s.. �G a � � vunr�: � • � a � yfE c
eY •?Y _ �Q
ese 5+s EC i pUS't y lV
�'-
r
"O
Ar
mar .:..... •:•' n „ "w , 52 „� ,,,�`. - � n �4
' ONPAC
AG fT ;-
T r°URAOSfS CbLYNEC L/a" AU,*
� A'LENQUAt� all
��3£D r.p•� MTY J%Ol�tH C• .
�' sCCGE ev
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Providence Road at I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
b
s
Date: September 10, 1999
�I �QGCh+ Cts d W b.y Action I.D. #
A
,! p � neer \�
LO,belleA. Rev ,4ftchtit 5die.4ule

PARCEL #
OWNER
ADDRESS
1.
229-151-01
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Ch :rlctte, NC 28234
2.
229-151-05
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
3.
229-152-37
Cato Family Real Estate LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
4.
229-151-04
Jonesville AME Zion Church
5527 Ballantyne Commons
Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28277
5:
225-112-07
David C. Alexander, et al.
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
' 6.
225-112-08
David C. Alexander, et al
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
7.
225-112-09
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
8.
225-112-12
Violet D. Grier
4427 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, NC 28105
9.
225-112-26
Vernon C. Alexander
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
10.
225-112-28
SouthTrust Bank of Central
6 Office Park Circle 4306
Carolina
Birmingham, AL 35223-0327
1.1.
225-112-29
Providence Road West Associate
125 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
12.
225-112-30
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
13.
225-112-99
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
14.
231-122-01
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235
15.
231-131-10
Francella B. Mason
232 Auten Street
Charlotte, NC 28208
16.
231-128-01
Marsh Mortgage Co., et al.
2115 Rexford Road, #100
Charlotte, NC 28211.
17.
229-153-04
Maggie B. Moore
5117 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
18.
229-153-05
Juanita Stitt Davis
5125 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
19.
229-153-06
'Frank W. Baker and wife,
3219 Nancy Creek
Marjorie J. Baker
Charlotte, NC 28270
20.
231-202-31
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235

5:
PARCEL #
1.
229-151-01
2.
229-151-05
3.
229-152-37
4.
229-151-04
5:
225-112-07
6.
225-112-08
Ch rlctte, NC 28234
7.
225-112-09
8.
225-112-12
9.
225-112-26
10.
225-112-28
1.1.
225-112-29
12.
225-112-30
13.
225-112-99
14.
231-122-01
15.
231-131-10
16.
231-128-01
17.
229-153-04
18.
229-153-05
19.
229-153-06
20.
231-202-31
OWNER
ADDRESS
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Ch rlctte, NC 28234
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
Cato Family Real Estate LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
Jonesville AME Zion Church
5527 Ballantyne Commons
Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28277
David C. Alexander, et al.
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
David C. Alexander, et al
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
Violet D. Grier
4427 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, NC 28105
Vernon C. Alexander
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
SouthTrust Bank of Central
6 Office Park Circle #306
Carolina
Birmingham, AL 35223-0327
Providence Road West Associate
125 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235
Francella B. Mason
232 Auten Street
Charlotte, NC 28208
Marsh Mortgage Co., et al.
2115 Rexford Road, #100
Charlotte, NC 28211,
Maggie B. Moore
5117 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
Juanita Stitt Davis
5125 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
Frank W. Baker and wife,
3219 Nancy Creek
Marjorie J. Baker
Charlotte, NC 28270
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235
',S

PARCEL #
OWNER
ADDRESS
1.
229-151-01
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
2.
229-151-05
Cato Family Investments LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
3.
229-152-37
Cato Family Real Estate LP
P.O. Box 34216
Charlotte, NC 28234
4.
229-151-04
Jonesville AME Zion Church
5527 Ballantyne Commons
Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28277
5:
225-112-07
David C. Alexander, et al.
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
6.
225-112-08
David C. Alexander, et al
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
7.
225-112-09
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
8.
225-112-12
Violet D. Grier
4427 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, NC 28105
9.
225-112-26
Vernon C. Alexander
5001 Kuykendall Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
10.
225-112-28
SouthTrust Bank of Central
6 Office Park Circle #306
Carolina
Birmingham, AL 35223-0327
11.
225-112-29
Providence Road West Associate
125 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
12.
225-112-30
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
13.
225-112-99
Providence Road West
125 Scaleybark Road
Development Company
Charlotte, NC 28209
14.
231-122-01
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235
15.
231-131-10
Francella B. Mason
232 Auten Street
Charlotte, NC 28208
16.
231-128-01
Marsh Mortgage Co., et al.
2115 Rexford Road, #100
Charlotte, NC 28211,
17.
229-153-04
Maggie B. Moore
5117 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
18.
229-153-05
Juanita Stitt Davis
5125 Allison Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
19.
229-153-06
Frank W. Baker and wife,
3219 Nancy Creek
Marjorie J. Baker
Charlotte, NC 28270
20.
231-202-31
Marsh Mortgage Co.
P.O. Box 35329
Charlotte, NC 28235

CHILDRESS KLEIN PROPERTIES
September 9, 1999
Ms. Dottie Coplon
Southeast Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
4316 Bellwood Lane
Charlotte, NC 28270
RE: Wetlands Applications
Cato Property
Dear Dottie:
I have enclosed for your review some information relating to our wetlands application.
As we discussed on the telephone, I am enclosing a copy of the wetlands mitigation area
on our site plus the conservation area that Mr. Cato is offering to dedicate on his
property south of Interstate 485.
In summary, the following activities are proposed to take place on our site:
1. Grading, clearing and filling of existing wetlands areas and streambeds;
2. Creation of a wetland marsh area on the site in conjunction with stormwater
detention;
3. Creation of a wetlands preservation area of +/- 20 acres in the same drainage basin
south of 1-485 (as shown on aerial photo);
4. Restoration of open streambed areas on the same tributary to Flat Branch Creek
south of 1-485 (as shown on aerial photo).
We have had numerous Federal agencies review this plan to date. We believe it is a
good plan for addressing environmental concerns in this area.
I would be happy to discuss further details with you at your convenience. Do not
hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CHILDRESS KLEIN PROPERTIES, INC.
David Haggart
DH/wr
enc
ON Fi!LST l'\'l,)\ < FN I FK
CI !A:2] .() -i F!:.. Xl. 2S202 o021
i'Qy 34-' 0000

t y f r �" �i� j � ' TJ►� �` f �� r T 'Std r n ` � �,� �r
,r It Pi -•rt rli k
t ON
t� l
f ,§ i§ ,✓ i a',/� , `� t _ 1Yn, 1y: ; Yyl� i} � 1 '�y l' {f .; i
{ 1 M{ d fn f r ! s •'� 5{ e 4!t2` ; '�+� F stll', X Ff �- +jf fi i
PIT
t f t '` a L� i w + ��� '6� a•yA '� f'Tf b
MW
t � 1" ` L,��•4! e' k�`��} ;�, §P Y . ' j y, d t tl' iin ��X ' {1{+ F t .: H° 1 r,+ � � 'f,j. l
dYw�l:...^f(;q,(�+J�{k•iys�st' � 'i, S�- ' j,;t�n4� � n F r °,,. ly
MIA
1.4
; all
.:
•e - 1 i.. f > A .: W+', 1/ I y� • �:A i� 'e
�' •T -C y� to ° 4C � r�; I. I rR 4� fjl '� 1, .� 9 � "� {l1 i
511 •� � � t{ �R a ���`i"11 �, +' '� 1 � {irG 4 'I x Y �� 'tC'� vYF �3 s }. 5 ru'"t ..
! q �4 �fr•Fpy + _�fr`3' � t�•Td.� J � � t � _� _:t y J�.r i * �.t j� 'i '�-.
4k 74
§1' �gK,,��� vY �k v
Fro'
3 i
t' u -W
ski � 1 x l��p �ijr'.•�'� �'A ] �'I iM1�' 4r i",kl d�� us 41 f van
�J
m
rtY I
i ;; xs
4 '7
E 3 , •. orf ��� � x - � 3 a yl{t`.
• }
AM, MytSk
gid. � Y / )�u � is :. .i✓ .+�'� �� 1y{- i � � �� A ,�y7 .�'.1 � t 14 +..�4 P '+ ��r :� �`r�
1 Y •!i �1ra a ' a ..1/
Ogg
i..r All 1
�• ...' I 4 }i 4 r: 0.3,,�+v 1J {a7I t Y 1
�„y��+„P 1 j � �
Ji11
r .q n � 11 .1'_ `fid �'. •ryv y n� TAY � Sr
6 r''� „ 4 t 14fb,��,..+�a• {`f' '� 44{{,,i`� ,ba , K'f s)) ;�{yv��gy� t si4ytx. 7 toF{f��, oil!
1.� Y 9,e .'f:Y,.. i:v2� •E. ,, Y"n s Y,, Iv, t

LEONARD S. RINDNE& PWS ,
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Landscape Architecture Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning [phone]
February 11, 1999
Sent - 3/27/99
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: Wetland/Stream Delineation Report - + 51 Acre Site at the Intersection of I-485
Providence Road, and Ballantyne Commons Parkway
Dear Steve:
At the request of Childress Klein, Inc., and the Geo -Science Group, I visited proposed
project site on January 19, 1999 to identify the presence of wetland and surface waters,
that would require permitting if they are impacted by development. An area is
determined to be a wetland when it exhibits Hydric Soil, Hydrophytic Vegetation, and
Wetland Hydrology characteristics. These characteristics are required to be in accordance
with the definitions in the U.S. Army Corps Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987. Areas
which exhibited these three characteristics were identified as a wetlands. Surface waters
such as perennial and intermittent creeks were also identified and will be subject to
Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Background
The 51 acre site is located at the intersection of Providence Road, Ballantyne Commons
Parkway, and Interstate I-485. The site is within the headwater drainage area of an
unnamed tributary to Flat Branch, a tributary to Six Mile Creek, in the Sugar Creek
Sub -Basin of the Catawba River (Water Classification - Q. The majority of the site is
moderately sloping former agricultural land and timbered woodland which has succeeded
to woodland in various stages of secondary succession to mature succession. Areas of
wetlands were primarily found in connection with springs and seeps at the head of the
headwater tributaries. All the streams from this site eventually enter culverts to cross
I-485.
Vegetation
The forested and scrub/shrub headwater wetland areas are dominated by Facultative,
Facultative Wet and Obligate species. Trees include willow oak, green ash, red maple,
sweetgum, black willow, alder, silky dogwood, spicebush, and sweetgum. Understory
and herbaceous strata includes smilax, microstegium, sedges, soft rush, and others.
Herbaceous and scrub/shrub vegetation are more dominant in areas subject to constant
saturation or flooding, and areas in earlier succession.

Mr. Steve Chapin, Wetland/Stream Delineation Report
+ 51 Acre Site at the Intersection of I-485
Providence Road and Ballantyne Commons Parkway
Page 2, February 10, 1999
The vegetation communities were also evaluated to determine the presence of the
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower. According to the attached report this plant was not
determined to be present.
oils
Wetlands areas appear to occur in Iredell soils on this site. Iredell soils may have hydric
inclusions according to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil
Conservation Service), Technical Guide -Section II -A-2, June 1991. During the wetland
delineation process "bull tallow" was found.
H, d�gy
Wetlands associated with the tributaries are the result surface runoff, springs/seeps, and a
high seasonal water table. The clayey subsoils contribute to the development of perched
wetlands. Most of the streams appeared to be perennial to intermittent and will likely be
confirmed as having important aquatic value. Characteristics included persistent pools,
macro -invertebrates; evidence of wildlife utilizing the stream; and gravelly to sandy
channel substrate. A small "unimportant" stream were determined present and these are
labeled O5a to O5c and M1 - M6 on the attached plan.
The wetland delineation will be surveyed to determine the actual extents and will be used
for planning and permitting purposes. I have informed my client regarding the permitting
issues based on my understanding of current Federal and State regulations and policies.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require further explanation.
Thanks.
Sincere
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
GI
AACA °� EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME I id,�cys .�.�QI r1 DATE _
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) CIA
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN �"�'�.�I/ COUNTY/CITY
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONSto
r �'
` 'r 1Nr
Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracts, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Ybck— 0-JGro
N ,A �
`�+"�• W
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
ro
Vol
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /d
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? A0 Approx.' Drainage Area:
1/lllll/ll/IIIII/ll/1lll/IIII!//Ill//l1/I/llfl/%llll/////l//lll/Il//l//l/ll/lll/ll///Il/1//l//llll/l//l/////Illll/I/l/I/I/I/ll///l//!l/!1/I/ILII/1///ll/!I/l///l//l/llf//l1//Illll/l///IJIII/ll111///1/I///////lJl/l//lllll/ll
Determination: . .tJ�,n
P ennia1 Channel (stop) Important Channel'"" �4 w LF PROJECT MGR Initials
ntermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating to Lofant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature
other than C.O.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
1:i

pl
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME�i f �r�s G(n DATE -1-f
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) - ��/�-4,
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN -Ur OF r(ee� e�ealncL COUNTY/CITY '�►�_
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
ljllQi�V:� 5,
tvr
Observation
Comments or Description
Fislt/Shelllish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro lnvertbrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
4.
/
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
a
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
OWN
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /® kpprox. Drainage Area:
l�uuilrlminla/uialr/rrna�ailulluu/rillnlra/arurrmruiurnr�muuirr/iiurniaiuinnmiiiiiirnniiuiim�aiun/uiuniiuiuuriirnuiriiniiiiui�uuiinnuuiirriinariiiuiimiiiruii
Determination:
rennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: AtO LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF >
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicatin catio important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signat e:
(i other than C.O.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
. 0

�! INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
4 (EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID ( APPLICANT NAME DATE -7147
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN gway�' COUNTY/CITY p
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS / u 1 94L/M ^/_1_ Pil �•�
NY Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shelltish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
—0010 Igae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
1'
01-1 Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present'(SP =h 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept)
Ad' cent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel .
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /6
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y 16) Approx. Drainage Area:
lllllllllll!//ll/lllllllllllllllll/llll/llll/lllllllllll////1/l/l1/lJ//l!/llll/1/l/Jll/ll/1/l///llll///1/1/lI/l///lllllll/ll/lllll/l/1111/l11lll/lll//1/11/l//l//fll/1/%!/!l//l//l///l1//Jl/!l/111//J///1////////l/l//l1/l/ll/
Determination:
P rennial Channel (Stop) I portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
I termittent Channel (proceed) .important Channel -3M LF 4&
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating to tion oLimportantfunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signatur .
if er than C.O.E. protect manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
0 40

Jeffrey A. Levi, M.S.
Environmental Biologist
9' � ev4020 lfinfzeldDrNCharlotte, l� 282 0115 * /704/4151-5't
l@DmIrdspiIngCiM
Cato Property Stream Survey
Findings Report on
Observed Conditions
Two streams located on the Cato property at the intersection of Providence Rd. and Providence
Rd. West, southern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1) were surveyed on 07/29/99.
Observations of instream physical and biological characteristics based upon the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers channel evaluation form were recorded to provide information for determining status
as perennial/important, intermittent/unimportant, or intermittent/important.
It must be noted that the survey was conducted during an extremely dry period. This should be
taken into consideration when reviewing the following information.
Stream S (Approximate survey location shown in Figure 1).
Stream S is the southernmost stream on the site with steep banks averaging 4 feet high. The
channel averages 3 feet wide with varying substrate. The upper reaches have a saturated loamy
sand substrate with a small component of gravel. There is a small flow through the upper reach,
which slightly increases downstream, associated with stretches through the middle reach where
flow is not present at the channel surface. The bed further downstream has higher percentages of
sand and gravel, and larger rocks are present. Small areas of undercut banks are found on the
outside of downstream meanders. Canopy coverage is high with scattered areas of adjacent
floodplain, and adjacent wetlands exist at the upper reach and near the convergence with stream
O.
Several varieties of macroinvertebrates were observed in (primarily in small pooled areas) and
around the stream such as adult damselflies (Odonata), water boatman (Corixidae), midge larvae
(Chironomidae), and mosquitoes (Culicidae). Evidence of crayfish (Decapoda) activity was
observed and raccoon (Procyon lotor) and deer (Odocoileus virginianus) tracks were evident
throughout the channel. Hydrophytic vegetation such as willow oak (Quercus phellos), and
polygonum (Polygonum spp.) were observed adjacent to and surrounding the channel.
Given that stream S has the previous mentioned characteristics, most notably the channel flow,
bed, and biological characteristics, the stream should be classified as perennial/important.
Additional information about the stream channel can be found on the attached data sheet, Stream
-S.
I IV

Stream O (Approximate survey location shown in Figure 1).
Stream O is north of stream S with banks averaging 3 feet high. The upper reach of the channel
averages 1.5 feet 'Mde with a low sinuosity. The substrate is loamy and heed with exposed roots.
The lower reach of the channel averages 3 feet wide with a predominately sandy -loam substrate,
except below 05 where the substrate consists of coarse sand and cobble. There was no flow
through the channel at the time of the survey, though there were areas with saturated substrate
and pooling in the lower reach. The instream characteristics improve significantly below the
intersection with spring 05 a, b, c (Figure 1). This lower reach also has a higher channel
sinuosity. Canopy coverage is high throughout, with little to no adjacent floodplain except near
the convergence with stream S.
Several varieties of macroinvertebrates were observed in (primarily in small pooled areas below
05) and around the stream such as midge larvae and beetles (Coleoptera). Evidence of crayfish
activity was observed below 05 and raccoon and deer tracks were evident throughout the
channel. Hydrophytic vegetation such as willow oak, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and
polygonum were observed adjacent to and surrounding the channel.
Given that stream O has the previous mentioned characteristics and -lacks some of the persistent
characteristics of a stream flowing year-round, the stream should be classified as intermittent.
Furthermore, since the lower reach (below 05) has higher quality physical and biological
characteristics the channel can be considered intermittent/unimportant above and
intermittent/important below 05 (Figure 1). Additional information about the stream channel can
be found on the attached data sheet, Stream - O.
Stream P (Approximate survey location shown in Figure 1).
Stream P is the continuation of streams S and O below their convergence and is not a separate
stream. It was given a separate identifier to show its differences from the upper reaches of the S
and O streams.
Stream P takes on the combined characteristics of streams S and O, but more resembles stream S.
Bank height is low as the surrounding topography declines (Figure 1). The channel averages 4
feet wide with a saturated sandy substrate including a small component of gravel and rock. There
is little flow, less than the S stream, but pools are scattered throughout. Canopy coverage is high
with a more pronounced area of adjacent floodplain. Adjacent wetlands exist at the convergence
of stream S and O.
The biological characteristics of the P stream are comparable to stream S. Additional information
can be found on the attached data sheet, Stream — P.
Given that stream P is a continuation of stream S and its channel characteristics are similar, stream
P should be classified as perennial/important.

All of the streams mentioned can be considered jurisdictional. The perennial stream contained
suitable physical and biological instream characteristics for flow and life support year-round. The
intermittent. strearn has n - my of these sx- e chactenstics but larks. indications of yQar=-,L-,u,d
KLxx Vx JV 4 , V lacks. (4 \.
flow and life support capabilities. Organisms still inhabit the lower stretch but only those adapted
to shorter aquatic life -cycles.
If there are any questions or you require more information, please let me know.
Tbank yo
Jeffrey A. Levi, M.S.
# IV

Roe 1. Location of streams and areas surveyed.
0
M
I I
N
CO
CU
C
RT
(D 0
-
E
E_
•x
0 0
E
0
n-
CL
W~a-�
aZ-5
C
Q

oil owunt"
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
.ACTION ID 15*r•e 4v\ -S APPLICANT NAME LrC�t� DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WA.TERBODY/RIVERBASIN __ ,Jbe`,
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS —V v0 k0-1 b-4 �L✓` f d•
COUNTYJCITY Me.C.LC "1J W 1�_
Mt- A P pe ✓- q p !'
Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
R�6 k
CM
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
etic- 06sewcA
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
xStable
Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure)
y� t
S G► tK vt cY
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow Io Channel
M C OS ► w.t.
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
w
sA
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
o�bw� s+ve ar„�,�- t'&(X r Co V.V- nr�
(June thru Sept.)
t"`•d•
SeepsAiroundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
–
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
sz
Hydrophytic Vegetation Wadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N
• � r
Approx. Drainage Area:
/lrlriluiniluuariiuii/rnauiriiiiii/urn/illlunaillrmaiulrung/uau/ruaiva/lm/aiulruu/ulnlu/l/uunnuruunml/annlgaolrln//uuliuiuianiu/uuui/rr/uinii/rlrlruiiiiui
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF 7.
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no -id)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
zM
0 IV

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID 4rR-aM=() APPLICANT NAME c0.�0
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) _
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN C0►A-GW61'_
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
DATE _7_2q —1 1
CODUNTY/CITY ! * t cc�k C, \4%v 1b 4-e—
__ Ck1Y'V IM%�'TDis
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N._.... __,
•+ t
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
uirrirmiu�riiaumiinruuiinaimrrurumairumnuiiuunuaruinirinrrrnniiniiiiaiiuuiinriiiau�ruiiuirir/rrrnuiiriuiriiuiirrinraiinruinriuiniiniruuiiirrrrrruivainnniirni
Determination:
&.6w
Perennial Channel (stop)7.)(Important Channel:' bO LF - Prow kL PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: ^-�Q LF-NeV :Dol,
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of itiNrtant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd) 4bova (75 n
Evaluator's Signature: `
(if oth th O.E. roject manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
"L-
2^1
6 IF
Observation
Comments or Description
Gra `ic1. c,,.c" - 540W os
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
P®U\S
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
x
x
Stable Streambanks
.e.t�st>Dt�,1 areuS (ower re
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Uppkr -� p..^ Lo -t v' .1;C4J�t
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
lO� V-4
1 �D
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.) .
S✓�� w
Adjacent Floodplain Present
r
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N._.... __,
•+ t
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
uirrirmiu�riiaumiinruuiinaimrrurumairumnuiiuunuaruinirinrrrnniiniiiiaiiuuiinriiiau�ruiiuirir/rrrnuiiriuiriiuiirrinraiinruinriuiniiniruuiiirrrrrruivainnniirni
Determination:
&.6w
Perennial Channel (stop)7.)(Important Channel:' bO LF - Prow kL PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: ^-�Q LF-NeV :Dol,
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of itiNrtant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd) 4bova (75 n
Evaluator's Signature: `
(if oth th O.E. roject manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
"L-
2^1
6 IF

�I INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID — rGCtvl- - APPLICANT NAME CM6
DATE -7-11-9_1
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) ,"� /�� /
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN Cl�W b0— COUNTY/CITY /� 1-e.0 � � w v -
RECENT
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONSy v-10 w(�N+- t V — v,_,-%4 C. Y'y ry ek
- LA r 4 `
T
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx.'Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop)Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) 8 Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importantlunimportant channel)
Ditch Throuah Upland (noid)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
Observation
Comments or Description
X
Fish/shell Iish/Crustaceans Present
1
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
ON1 r�
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Naw. ob r
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
t. .
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
PAXr
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. graver, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
Undercut BankslInstream Habitat Structure
"6 vk+
Flow In Channel
'
,
VRr 1dw Stc&6�W�c�l.
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
t t of Zs�-v •S
Genz, —ett
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept) .
5
Adjacent Floodplain Present
c
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
S t.tr S7Ym.
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx.'Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop)Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) 8 Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importantlunimportant channel)
Ditch Throuah Upland (noid)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present

IC
PROVIC :E ROAD - 200' R/W
PROVIDENCE ROAD-NC16 ca
&Rqm

46.
-96L-
966 L `I LM
H
(svewgg u! uleldt) 18410 _
('ur) r9 �,y�� l '" 1 :lloS pelsln PS 03 41daQ
lsa,L 1211naN-Oyd
elep Aotung (log leool "—
VU0 :1W ul l032M aald 01 141daQ
SaAea'7 paUi&1g4018
saLloul Z 4 laddn ul slauu-io loos
aoopnS ;o Lpdoa
:(pallnbal aloLu to Z) slolsalpu epuaoaS
(-O7d 6ulpnloxa)
OV_4 to MO'dd 'lao arise 3cL;l copodS ivaulwoQ 10 ivaolod
spue¢aM u! swa331ad s8nuleJQ --
:suo zw"osRo play
s3!sodoa luaullpoS
•y :alms
—
sour! 3;l1Q —
sVayq l012M
olgal!BAd aloQ papl0oa)j ON
soL;oul Z t laddn ul pa3slnia
1x410 —
pa3epunul
s4da1501014dlouay
:slo3s01pul Alawud
ebnaE) 9P1 to 'a:la1 •ws211S—
:2l01solpul A60lolpA!{ pUeReM
:(s)(lawQd ul agllo200) C1aQ papl00814 —
IADOloua.kH
N0I.LVJ2DSA
- �'cr`±'�'� --�.`�r,� �
,.�; ir`✓�'11'�`� S?
��':� �� srn/tea r�
sa,k
Leary uJalgOJd lenueiod a me eqi sl
:s�(laweb
'SW
4
(-O7d 6ulpnloxa)
OV_4 to MO'dd 'lao arise 3cL;l copodS ivaulwoQ 10 ivaolod
9 l
.1.7 V-5 _ j .
�'�i C�'pri vr-/ -S
•y :alms
:JolE6lZsanul
:/auno:)
—I
1 �'it �f '9
C
'E l
�3 r' �j 1.
U 15 n 's
b
JA OL
z
10100!pUI wnlells saloaos lueld luaulw00
loleolpul wnlslls
sap -los weld luoUILuoQ
N0I.LVJ2DSA
(lenueW uolleaullas7 spuel1aM 300 L26 L)
NOLLVNIMf313Q QNV 1-L3M 3NI-LnOU
WI303 VIVC3
('asJanaJ uo uleldxa 'papaau ;l)
:ol loadN
sa,k
Leary uJalgOJd lenueiod a me eqi sl
:al ioasupJl
sa), L(uolierulS
leOld/4y) pagJnislp-/-11ueo9!U51s,alls aye sl
:pl /,.lunwwo0
ON a
La11s ay1 uo zslxa saOueisuJnOJlO {ausJoN 00
•y :alms
:JolE6lZsanul
:/auno:)
:JaumO1wp-ollddy
�9 :alec]
P.�?
N:ailSRoalosd
(lenueW uolleaullas7 spuel1aM 300 L26 L)
NOLLVNIMf313Q QNV 1-L3M 3NI-LnOU
WI303 VIVC3

,06 (
`L.M
-L6L-
1`7t-Aa d4Lw?jo-f
:g�,Qu,a13
ON 1PuspaM a u141jM lutod Butldt.ueS stye si ON LluasaJd sltoS ouPAH
ON 13uasaid A50101PAH puepaM
(eioJto) (aiOJl0) ON zluasaJd uoae32BOA opA4dolpAH
W98LUad ui uieldx3) Ja41p
lsri sltoS ouPAH IeuotleN uo palstl—lsri slloS ouPAH. jeoon uo palsrl —sltos Apues ul Butjmns atusBJo —
silos Apues ut JoAUJ aoewnS ut lualuo' otueBJo 4811H —
suopaJouoo
NOLL'VNIWHg13(3 GNVI13M
S:JOI03 vLUOJ4c)-mo1 JO POA8t0
suOP!Puo0 Butonpab
au:t8:}j 01rastol l omby
JoP0 olPt;InS
uopadtd3 oas!H
loso.SIH '—
ZIP, 0)
0j_'
.s:lJeuJob
:sJoleotpul l!oS oupAH
-07 ---�
ala aJnlonJ3s 1s2JJuo }/aouepungy ps(ovq pasunyl (3sloyl 1 ilasunV uozo sa out
'suonaJouo� •aJnlxa u
H ( 4 apOV4 sJolo, apaoytj
Joloz) xulev4 41dao
:u/,M000sa4q �(— �PIL ,?q
2140.1d IJ
oN sal. ZadAj paddeW uJJI1v07
suotlen.tasq� pia!d
r' I a. �_ :ssel� aGeuseJ0
�d 't
)1,? ,/(dnoJ6gns) ALuouoxe1
/
:(asegd Pup sapaS)
l 16 aweN stun dell
silos

-96L-
9661 `ii m
:s4amusa
(sVeuJog us uleidx3) Joy1O
Cug :(!OS pa1IIJn1DS of :(1dD0
_
1sa i 1QJ1nQN-0y j-
4 j�.�-� � 2•� a�►1�(�i �t n,�:5('?� l � --�'Y� �r�����iJ r'` r�L`�Y
8360 AaAJnS !!oS 18001 —
i'uJ ay u( 1012M DQJ j of 1{1dQ(3
sanea•l pQule3S-JQ1eM—
},p :91e1S
sal(oul z t Jaddn ur slauunto 10013 pazlPixo "—
('uq :JQleM ooQ;JnS ;o r(1dD0
:(paJlnbaJ QJouJ Jo Z) s.Joleolpul AJ2puoD2S
'
spuQpom u1 suJeuva oSQulvja —
:LuoavAJosgo ploy
sllsod20 luvwpos —
o` :l Mov:f ;0 wooJad
s:lJoyy JolQM
olgvl(aAV 219p popJoosl3 ON —
sagoul Z t Jaddn us poilaimn "—
J941O "—
polepunul—
LydaJbologd lauoy—
:sJoloorpul AJQtuud
o5nvo oP1 Jo •arl •umaJ1S—
:sl0lvolpul A50101PAH puvaDM
:(r JQUJDa Ul equoLD(3) Q1Q4 PDPJoaa}3 —
AD0109QAH
n
NOLLV13DAA
('as.FanaJ UO uleldxa 'papaau }i)
:al loll
sq), Zeajy Lualgold lellualod E eale aLR sl
4 j�.�-� � 2•� a�►1�(�i �t n,�:5('?� l � --�'Y� �r�����iJ r'` r�L`�Y
saA Z(uopenllS leold/4V) paginlslp Aliueogpms ails aLli sl
:Ql /alunwwo0
ON aJ� zalls al{i uo lslxa saousisLunoir0 le LuJoN oa
},p :91e1S
:Jole6l3.sanut
cicry�l
:saunn0/lueollddy
'(-01fj bulPnpxe)
JG '180 DJQ Mp sDroodS luvululop
--a+"Y - -T :a1lSAOafold
o` :l Mov:f ;0 wooJad
AFF "I
JOleo!Pul wnlells
_ S1107as weld luaulwoo
Jolezipul wrens "poos weld 1000lwol3
NOLLV13DAA
(lenueW uoheaull 0 spuellaM 300 LBS 0
NOI1VNIM3130 ONVI13M Manou
MOA VIVO
('as.FanaJ UO uleldxa 'papaau }i)
:al loll
sq), Zeajy Lualgold lellualod E eale aLR sl
:i11 loasuell
saA Z(uopenllS leold/4V) paginlslp Aliueogpms ails aLli sl
:Ql /alunwwo0
ON aJ� zalls al{i uo lslxa saousisLunoir0 le LuJoN oa
},p :91e1S
:Jole6l3.sanut
1— :R1uno0
:saunn0/lueollddy
:91eo
--a+"Y - -T :a1lSAOafold
(lenueW uoheaull 0 spuellaM 300 LBS 0
NOI1VNIM3130 ONVI13M Manou
MOA VIVO

4ti'�vctN4J �� a ,.ate' �',
ON SQA ZPuepaM a ul43iM lulod Bugdwes sltii sl sa,k ZivasaJd silos oupAH
sak Z3u2s2Jd ABoIoJPAH PuaRaM
(elosl�} (alo:ro} sad ZluasaJd vo4e3a6an ol3Aydo:pAH
NDL.LVNlV4H3.L3(3 QNVIGM
SILOS
i
:s�(Jewaa
(s)iJewaV ul uleldx3} m4lo
sJoloo awoJt{o-moi 10 paAalE) "
3srl silos oupAH leuoueN uo Paisrl —
suoulpuoo Bulonpakj —
3sri silos ouPAH ieool uo pa3sr•l —
ew:Sab a: usloy�l omby —
s(los Apues ul Sunlea:3$ oluaBJo _
silos ApueS ul:aAel aoe}JnS ui 3ua3uoo olueBJo 4B!H _
Jopo orp3lnS
—
uapadld3 anslH
suoaatauo:)
ioso3slH
:sJo3eolpul Ilos. oupAH
J Zr � AJ
oua aini. 3ssiiuo )/aouepungy (3sloy�l Ilasun(ry
•suopaJouoo 'oJnixay
(Jsioyl liasunV u(s
uozol{ at(oui
aluoyv sJoloo a(i3oIN
Joloo xuley�l tl3daQ
:uollouosaQ ail}oJd
ON saA Zod/,.L paddeW wJl;uo7
suotlenJasgo
:(dnoJ54nS) Awouoxel
piazj
—A , :sato afieweJQ
:(ase4d PUB sauaS)
w
aeN llun detNN
SILOS

-96L-
9661 `11M
:s�jlacuoj�
(sVeuloy uj uieldx3) io410 —
isalla1lnoN-OVA
elea AaAinS IpS Isowl —
('ua �-p l > :itoS polIIinlaS of 41doa
! G
(•u)A atd uj jav;M ml of 41doa
sanaa1 pau193S-JaleM—
J%�'�- U
so4oul Z L jaddn ul sjauua4o loos pozipmo —
:(ponnbai oJow Jo Z) siolealpuvp u000s
spuepaM uj swelled aBsuleJ
CUD � x� aaleM aoounS ;o 41dao
ti [ '
mooaAlosgp ploy
sllsodoa luomlpog, 7-
sou('j uu
i(uogen1!S leo!dA1y) paginls!p Agueotpu8!s alis a141 sl
:oj /a!unwwo0
sVBV4
so4oul Z L soddn u( palalnlaS�Ja4ip
VL! A)I� polepun4L,7e
algajjany alga poplooaa oN —
—"
s4daiBolo4d 1su9V—
:sl03201pul AJsulud
obnog oP110 I"v j 'umallS "•—
:slolaolpuj ABolapAl{ puejlaM
:(r.VvLuoV ul oquasao) also pap000aa—
AOOIObaAH
W
N011t/13J A
(•aslanaJ uo u!ejdxa 'papaou 31)
:al 101d
ON sak
(-oy:l Bujpnpxo)
OVA ao mov:1 '180 via 1x41 soloodS auau(woa to ,tLeojsd
ON sa,k
i(uogen1!S leo!dA1y) paginls!p Agueotpu8!s alis a141 sl
:oj /a!unwwo0
0.
✓
La1!9 9141 uo 1s!xa saouelswnon0 IewJoN oo
'SL
JCI- i-
5. '�
-� :A unoO
- x :.raunnpJlueo!Iddy
:aled
—>1S e
:al!S/loaloJd
joleoipul wnlells
saioaog 1UOW lua iwoo
Joleoipul uwnlells
soiaaos WOW iueuiwoa
N011t/13J A
(lenue(N uo!leaullad spuellaM 300 L86 0
N0IIVNIWI:i313a ONVI13M 3Nanou
WHOA t11ba
(•aslanaJ uo u!ejdxa 'papaou 31)
:al 101d
ON sak
zeaiy walgojd le!walod a ease ac41 sl
:aI loasueJ1
ON sa,k
i(uogen1!S leo!dA1y) paginls!p Agueotpu8!s alis a141 sl
:oj /a!unwwo0
ON saA
La1!9 9141 uo 1s!xa saouelswnon0 IewJoN oo
:alelg
:Jo1e6!lsanul
-� :A unoO
- x :.raunnpJlueo!Iddy
:aled
—>1S e
:al!S/loaloJd
(lenue(N uo!leaullad spuellaM 300 L86 0
N0IIVNIWI:i313a ONVI13M 3Nanou
WHOA t11ba

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: `r—q < P
jLoy(S Date: _
Applicant/Owner: C1411 g< e - �, County:
investigator: State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
.t✓ C er (a--' 1
VEGETATION
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
Dominant Plant Soecies
1 AC-0r'h v 4 ayIn 6 eytu ✓y
r Ls� tf✓ �r�1 rh
Stratum Indicator
-A
i " `.�
Domir ant Plant Soecies Stratum
9. t�fnc "y j t11�_ {
1 o. P � Ida X"'.e
Indicator
=Y_ V4
�2.
4 '4N6fnyC1
S. t Fleu ` (' .nom-
FAC V4
�_.
12. n ."'
W
Water Marks
rift Lines
-,,elSedimant Deposits 17-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Fold
Field Observations:
64�a V'I�( �X� .
d-�
1'I►�®
14. y i
;r
Depth to Saturated Soil: ! (in.)
_ FAC -Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1T
44
16.i
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW` at FAC
(excluding FAC-).
R rks: j p
✓l'vleCA_ i1 d� STI l'. f/- if
V
M
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
—Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aeriai Photographs
Primary Indicators:
{o'lnundated [2/11 A4Z 1
_ Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
rift Lines
-,,elSedimant Deposits 17-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Fold
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water.!Oxidized
Secondsdicators (2 or more required):
Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _ % Gn.)
Water -Stained Leaves
—Local Soil Survey Data
;r
Depth to Saturated Soil: ! (in.)
_ FAC -Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
W71,1905
-196-

566 L `U.M
-L6L-
oN soJl LPueizaM Q U'4 -1!M wind BuilduweS sr4z sl
{elaJi')
:Bv&Luow
ON Z2uasaJd slioS oupAy
ON LzuesaJd A5,loJpAH puIIpaM
{aioJio)
ON a 12uasaJd uonezcban oczAydoJpAH
NQLLVNIWH313Q QNb'I13A&
:s�}Jewa�l
(CVBLUaV w uieldx3) Ja4zo_ sJaloD PwOJ40-M01 JO
ry paAal�
zsslios oupAH leuogeN uo pals.! suoaipuoa Bu:oripa'd —
ISTI SlioS oupAH Ieao-1 uo pazBr-! — awiBa}j aJnzsioVI om5y —
sling ApueS ui BuplQaJzs olueBJp JoPo olP>}(nS
slioS ApueS ui JaAel aoepnS ui zualua' aiuROJO 451 uopodid3 PiMomsS "—
suopaJouoo — losozsiH —
:sJozeoipul LoS OupAH
R }
7-711 f
ala aJnlonJ2S zs2JJuo�1aouspungy (zSioW llasuniNj PSia
'suonaJouo alnlxa W IRS
Wj uozuoH lsa�{oui
spa0vi sJoloJ apaOIN Joloo xuzeyq yzdao
:uona�JasaQ allpoJd
oN saA LodAj padde{^! uJJvu., — :(dnoJbgnSi Awouoxe l
suoizanoosgo plasj
7- a :sselo a6Eu)eJrl r -
=
C4 •• 7.yr,e :i vl j '71 ��-"i—.J� " �?rIT"14 1 :(ase4d Pue saueg}
j 1 G 1 oweN liufl deyl
Silos

6ui.aoliuoW `uoile6iliW puellaAA `sleligeH }o uofleJolsa�:] `sa+pnlS lUeld paja6uepu3 `sisAleuV }eligeH
.IMT u!Vjooq aqj ao iomolluns s,zltucamgoS jo
aagj!0 J0 uoilipuoo .zalulm aril. uT suxals Suilrng agl JO aouaptna SUB aas IOU pip aA
•Aumqaud suouzc OD
ou fluollug uzo4 ,mS Buluum `oSpli aRl Suolu kumanup umox nano aqZ -S
•oltsauzoq pouopuuqu oql jo spoom jo japioq aqs •l,
•Xl zadaid aql jo X mpunoq glnos aql Buolu mo -d ougaamod oq l -E
•gomgD uoi 3IV att�sauor It'spoom
jo iapxoq puu Apodoxd oql jo Xmpunoq.Isom aqI Buolu Ako-I ougzamod oEU •Z
•goua Suilallend AkOg oupomod aqI Sulpnlaut
`Xumjaud suounuOD OUSIuaitug PU8 "P2i aouapinozd Suolu AkOX PuOJ OU -I
:azam pou!mxo sluligBq ags
•smads omI osagl uo poluxluoouoo slaojja mo
•(snunz2•roa2.saasV) xalse u!BjooD pue (zzzlzuza^gos snjzubt1ajj) aamoUuns
s,zltutamgaS `ummoo luzapaq jo asogl axe os op lugl sopods oml aqs •uoiltpuoo
aalu[m oql ul palliluopi oq ueo lugl a2ugoj uiulay imp smods asogl of pollmq si swoods
paaaSuupuo .aoj uoilunluna ano `moo oql jo aural slq l •lam fIoA!lulaa pue moi si alts aqI
jo lsoui `sopzs Iseaquou puu Isuaglnos aqI uo spuuidn agi ioj Idooxg •(npabi snuzj) ould
XIlolgo7 ui poluuld scare luzanas are axags •aanlsioui Iios of Suipt000u guiXnA satoads
agl glim `lsaaoj poomp uq-ould pax!w luuoiss000ns-olppnu u Xq pajanoo st alts agl jo
IM IsougV •sopununuoo luuld aqI ,�pIuopt XIanileluol puu sua•re undo aleool of posn sum
(L66I) gduJBologd lutaau uV -81 Xmmgo j uo S8ti-I fq glnos aqI uo popunoq `XuA--Imd
suounuoO auXluullug Pue •pg aouapznozd JO ANS alis aiov -+-09 oqj pouiurexo aAA,
:uaZ auaQ
,�umqrud suouiu OD au iluullug puu •pg aouapinoxd Jo Jaua03 MS uo alta :aH
6661 `61 AJMgad
9ZLS-LbS (VOL) :X8J
990t,-Lt'S (VOL)
690t►-Ltis (vu)
9ZLSZ ON `IIaMaN
999 x013 'O'd
'a'4d `dWVH31113W 30N3MMd1 'I
'Q'4d `SM3HIJLVW "d S3wvr
90I8Z DN `smaguVw
•uZ anugsa}IodS V I L £
aaupurg •S P.reuoa'I 'JW
. —16A
NOI.LV:JOIS3'a
ONV 1N3WSS3S'SNf
-LV
119"V

snnau a'y� ' a souau
`Kjamouls
•sn imluoo of ojw!soq iou op asrold ` fan ms mo Inoq, suoilsonb Niue anrj nofi jI
pa�oa�ap aaam slionAipnb oN uaaouoo jo saaoads jo jstj
.SjunoD Smquaj3jo;)W oq uo aas tjojgm (•dds sajaosj) :aomjjinb olimbt, ogijo suotupods
Sup jo aouaaan000 aaj, aoj paloaajo oaam osoql ware loon anasuajxo aajl ultAA
Z •d
6661 Ammgad 61
iaupurd •-I

An Archaeological Survey of the
Cato Property, Providence,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
August 1999
A Report Submitted to Childress Klein Properties,
Charlotte, North Carolina,
by
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Table of Contents
0
ManagementSummary ...................................................................................................... I
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 2
PhysicalEnvironment ......................................................................................................... 2
PrehistoricBackground ...................................................................................................... 3
EthnohistoricBackground ................................................................................................... 5
HistoricalBackground ........................................................................................................ 6
Archaeological Research in the Project Vicinity .................................................................... 8
FieldMethods .................................................................................................................... 8
Resultsof the Survey ......................................................................................................... 9
Standardsof Significance ................................................................................................... 10
Recommendations................................................................................................................ 11
ReferencesCited ................................................................................................................... 12

List of Figures
ii
Follows
Page
Figure 1: Mecklenburg County and the project area ................. ; ......................................... 2
Figure 2: The project and survey area 2
Figure 3: The Cato house 9

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The archaeological survey of the proposed Cato property development tract covered
approximately fifty acres near Providence in southern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for prehistoric or historical archaeological
sites with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places.
Since most of the project area is forested, the survey relied heavily on screened shovel
tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet). In areas with exposed ground surfaces (drill rig roads, tree
falls, etc.), the surveyors closely examined the exposures for prehistoric and historic artifacts.
The survey recorded one prehistoric: site, 31MK922, an isolated quartz flake. The other
feature of the tract is the Cato house, built in 1955. 31MK922, a small, heavily disturbed lithic
scatter, is not in our opinion eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
The Cato house does not meet the 50 -year age criterion of the National Register and is not in our
opinion eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Since no site on the tract appears to be eligible.for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places, we do not recommend additional archaeological investigations on the tract.

INTRODUCTION
Project title: An Archaeological Survey of the Cato Property, Providence, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina.
2
Location of the project: The 50 -acre tract is near Providence in southern Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. On the east side of the tract is Providence Road (NC Highway 16), on the north
side is West Providence Road (SR 3626), on the south side is I-485, on the west side is Jonesville
Zion Church (see Figures 1 and 2).
Contracting organization: Childress Klein Properties, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Principal Investigator and Field Director: Thomas H. Hargrove.
Field Crew: Ian Edwards.
Dates of survey: July 7-8, 1999.
The following sections follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of Archaeological
Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and the 1992 edition of the style guide for American
Antiquity (volume 54, number 4). The sections include a description of the project's physical
environment and its probable influences on past settlement choices and site preservation; an
outline of the area's prehistoric and historic background; a description of field techniques; a
description of the site recorded during the survey; a discussion of the archaeological significance
of the site; recommendations for archaeological management; and a list of sources consulted for
the background research, survey, and evaluation.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project area is in the Piedmont's "Mixed Felsic and Mafic" soil system (Daniels et al.
1984), which in this area features broad, level uplands and creek valleys with wide or narrow
bottomlands. The terrain is mostly wide, level to gently sloping upland hills and ridgetops,
separated by small intermittent or permanent streams. The area is drained by small creeks and
intermittent drainages in the headwaters of Flat Branch, a tributary of Six Mile Creek, part of the
Catawba River basin. Elevations range from about 660 feet in the drainages up to about 720 feet
on some of the upland ridges. From a geological perspective, the area is in a complex section of
the Charlotte Belt with metavolcanic felsic to mafic tuffs, felsic metavolcanics, and granite (North
Carolina Geological Survey 1985). Stone suitable for tool production (chiefly rhyolite and
quartz) would have been available in prehistoric times close to or in the project area.

�-✓ / Longisia Oswalt'
0 �y
:w n IJ/ o rov' • •
, p Maze pat ' Ull Mi Bridge Row iii Sbury
B dy her 1 eP erds 0 O e v
irn m od c` Granit Cr
• Duan Drums - �� 3c
U 0 Crossroad lie t p o Quarry
LAKE 11 o
0
aiden oa ith o n
Killian oore vil ' in a Gro vie , a Crescent '
rossroads o z
MAN Mt our e t eigh p ROC 11
La d'
o Pumkin De v esr o
o Cent r �• os
geN m D• a av s �-•
• ogerCiTri n p ! Cornell s o a K apolis . m is I
Lincoln a ' o
,8661 Iran°e Caldwell
•a Long Statio •Oma - ' 'o ._�t ♦ Cr
Shoals ow sville L 0
- Maripos o m H ntersville
— 1.1.1 � o cor ,, •
h Shoals o axis p fl� O� 0• ,so„ v
ti ci �c. \ Mt Pie n o o
untai
Hardin' so • Du a Po Moo r-� ro
[C '
Vi11 g !' n o
land cy 4 /Fi
Stan ey Lake \ Cr ert 0
Mill 2C, Barriers MIII / a
6� v
yside o f s°c C
oil ows ;v eorgpville •70
NN rita o tore •r / Lambett
eine
a Be KL E U G 'Rocky o \\
• - f � Newell !
0 Booge wn V
Cr v
v
a z m ro
. � W
LA E i
WYLIE p
0
o
i
000
op in it
1000
v �
_Sall
/ Lo ust R
0 i
GP�Q,p
<
Stallings
abarrusCr
Ste
field
ov
NO
Allen RFocK Mi land aG
r ZIRP
WI
e • t c N
G r Stouts
fill_
�Bri
Rocky Y
*� 0
O N
O
)ods
Fairvie
le o d
G r
Net
atthews n'
GrOo
GP�Q,p
<
Stallings
Fkk
II
F4
oUnionville rar
'
is
�a In 5
JSOc
at
o F irfir
G r Stouts
1�° Weddin ton
Baker
*� 0
O N
O
`p Marvin ey
pel
seAeo 0
Wingate Marst
o on
t
onroe
�°,°madam--
el
5ek
Figure 1: Mecklenburg County and the project area (arrow).
Base map: U.S.G.S. State of North Carolina.
Scale: one inch = eight miles.
T
N

r►.
rh
�``.f�-i/��:J(� /�_� _ •r.t. /i; • r .��W1(�.i \'�'�•� ��\Ir �.J1 ��'� ��'� J `L.
74
K_77,7
�IZ.1) 698 �---�
�31MK922) , J• u
M / � � . 1 MC KEE -• � � .�/`� .
/ S6 . �YVEST i �.. rr� '�J 700
----/ ' ns =` 'Cato house \;
-project
and
survey area ; r
`� \ iI
700
Figure 2: The project and survey area.
Base map: U.S. G. S. Weddington quad.
Scale: one inch = 2,000 feet

The soils on the tract are dominated by Iredell fine sandy loam, an upland soil that is only
moderately well drained. The higher ridges are eroded Cecil sandy clay loam. As human
habitation and as farmland, Iredell fine sandy loam is limited by its slow drainage and high water
table (about one to two feet below the ground surface) (McCachren 1980). The 1910 soil map
of Mecklenburg County (Hearn and Brinkley 1912) shows sparse settlement on the Iredell soils of
southern Mecklenburg County, in contrast with the more densely settled Cecil, Appling, Vance,
and Mecklenburg soils.
PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
The earliest recorded human settlements in the Carolina Piedmont are Clovis -period
campsites dating from the close of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. Fluted Clovis points
are occasionally found in surface collections in the region, but no intact Clovis sites have been
recorded in the North Carolina Piedmont. Clovis points have been found in North Carolina's
southwestern Piedmont in Cabarrus County near Rimer (just east.of Kannapolis) and -near Lake
Norman in Mecklenburg County (Perkinson 1973). In neighboring South Carolina, state-wide
overviews of known Paleo-Indian sites show that remains from this period are often on terraces
next to major rivers, but that Paleo-Indians also occupied many types of environments throughout
the state. Intact sites of this period are extremely rare, however. The Big Pine Tree site in
Allendale County, South Carolina, is an unusual example of a well-preserved Paleo-Indian site in
the Southeastern United States (Anderson and Sassaman 1996:229,230). Although we found no
evidence of Paleo-Indian sites in the project or its vicinity, it seems likely that the project area was
occupied or at least visited by bands of Late Ice Age hunters 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The
oldest excavated site in the North Carolina Piedmont dates from the Hardaway period, about .
10,000 BC to 8,000 BC (Coe 1964:57; Ward 1983:61). We know almost nothing about these
earliest Carolinians. They were probably nomadic hunters and gatherers, but we do not know
whether these eastern Paleo-Indians were like their Paleo-Indian contemporaries in Missouri and
Florida, who hunted now -extinct big game animals such as mammoth, ground sloth, and bison
(Steponaitis 1986:369).
The following.Archaic period is somewhat better known but still the subject of a great
deal of speculation because we lack information about many aspects of subsistence and social
organization. Overviews of the Archaic period have suggested that the Archaic cultures of
eastern North America show an evolutionary sequence in which nomadic or semi- nomadic
hunter -gatherers, fishers, and shellfish collectors developed regional adaptations to the warmer
climates, expanding deciduous forests, and smaller game animals of the Holocene. The Early
Archaic period in the Carolina Piedmont is sub -divided into a Palmer phase (ca. 8,000 BC) and a
Kirk phase (7,000-6,000 BC), both characterized by corner -notched points (Coe 1964). The
Middle Archaic period is represented by the Stanly phase (6,000-5,000 BC), the Morrow
Mountain phase (5,000 - 4,500 BC), and the Guilford phase (4,500-4,000 BC) (Coe 1964). Early
and Middle Archaic settlements in the southeastern United States apparently tended to be small,
temporary camps with little or no evidence of substantial dwellings or other structures
(Steponaitis 1986:371; Willey 1966:60; Caldwell 1958). Middle Archaic sites, which may be the

i
4
most common prehistoric sites in the neighboring South Carolina Piedmont, tend to be small, low-
density lithic scatters found in a wide range of topographic settings. Archaeologists have
suggested that these sites represent small, very temporary camps occupied (and rarely re-
occupied) by highly mobile hunter -gatherer bands, each probably made up of an extended family
(Blanton and Sassaman 1989:59). The Irate Archaic, or Savannah River period (4,000-500 BC) is
characterized by large, triangular points with broad stems and by large bowls carved from
soapstone (Coe 1964:119).
The Woodland period in eastern North America (beginning at around 700 B.C.) is marked
by the appearance of farming, ceramics, the bow and arrow, and in some areas by the construction
of burial and temple mounds. Significant dependence on maize farming, sometimes considered
one of the features of a Woodland culture, apparently came even later, perhaps as late as A.D.
1000 (Ward 1983:72-73). Hunting and gathering apparently played amore important role than
farming during the Early Woodland period and most of the Middle Woodland period throughout
most of the southeastern United States (Steponaitis 1986:379). In the Carolina Piedmont, the
first recognized Woodland phase is the Badin (ca. 500 BC - AD 500), marked by sand -tempered,
fabric- or cord -marked ceramics and large, often crude triangular points. Its successor was the
Yadkin phase (ca. AD 500-1200), whose ceramics resembled its predecessor's, with occasional
linear or check stamping added to the decorative motifs (Coe 1964:55). Another difference
between the Badin pottery and the later Yadkin pottery is the latter's use of crushed quartz temper
(Coe 1964:30).
The Mississippian period in the Catawba River basin in North Carolina and adjacent parts
of South Carolina was marked by complicated stamped pottery, heavy reliance on farming,
triangular or pentagonal arrow points, social ranking, and ceremonial centers with temple mounds
in the form of truncated pyramids. By about AD 1100 or 1200, complicated stamped pottery,
possibly representing the whole complex of Mississippian traits, had appeared in nearby areas of
South Carolina (Anderson 1989:113-115). The earliest known dates for Mississippian -influenced
societies in the North Carolina Piedmont (specifically, the Pee Dee — Yadkin basin) cluster in the
A.D. 950 — 1050 range (Oliver 1992). The Mississippian mound center at Town Creek in the Pee
Dee — Yadkin River basin, recently described by Coe (1995), dates to about AD 1200 — 1400.
(Oliver 1992:241).
Woodland -period or Mississippian village sites are frequently found on well -drained
lowlands, such as Congaree soils (Ward 1965; Hargrove 1991; May 1989:25, Keel 1990:1) or on
low rises and ridgetoes overlooking stream valleys. In a sample of 64 Mississippian sites in the
Pee Dee River basin, 95% of the settlements were on lowland Wehadkee or Chewacla soils
(Oliver 1992:253). Small Mississippian sites have been found in the Six Mile Creek basin. The
survey of the U.S. 521 landfill site discovered a Woodland/Mississippian site on a levee
overlooking Six Mile Creek (Baker and Hall 1986). An archaeological survey of a tract on
Blakeney -Heath Road to the west of the project area found two small Mississippian period sites,
one represented by a pentagonal point and ceramics, the second represented by ceramics only,
near a small tributary of Six Mile Creek (Abbott 1996). Another nearby example is 31UN203, a
Late Woodland/ Mississippian site with intact remains recently recorded near Waxhaw on Twelve

f ►.
Mile Creek in Union County, North Carolina (Hargrove 1996). Smaller satellite camps are
sometimes found in the Piedmont uplands.
ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND
Although most histories of North Carolina tend to date the first significant Indian and
European contacts to the English coastal explorations and Roanoke settlements of the 1580s, the
Spanish had explored central South Carolina and western North Carolina and had made- an
unsuccessful attempt to garrison the North Carolina Piedmont and mountains over 20 years
earlier. During the 1560s, the Spanish contingent at Santa Elena (now Parris Island Marine Base
in South Carolina) sent an expedition under Juan Pardo into the western Piedmont and mountains
of North Carolina and Tennessee. According to one interpretation of the Spanish records of these
expeditions, the Spanish soldiers visited Indian villages in the Piedmont in the vicinity of the
present-day towns of Lancaster, Van Wyck, Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden, and
built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury. Unfortunately, the Spanish recorded little
information about the Indians encountered on these expeditions. These garrisons were short-lived
because of hostilities between the Indians and the Spanish, who burned several Indian towns, and
because of the fragile supply lines between the western Piedmont and Santa Elena. on the lower
South Carolina coast (Hudson 1990). Although the Spanish were looking for gold in the
Piedmont and mountains, they never found it, even though gold mining became a local industry
over two centuries later.
The next recorded visitor to this section of the Piedmont was the explorer John Lederer, a
German doctor commissioned by the Governor of Virginia to look for a westward route to the
Pacific Ocean in 1669 and 1670. His account of his visit to the Piedmont in 1670 during a
journey along the Trading Path to the Catawba was and still is controversial (Adams 1980). By
some interpretations, Lederer traveled southwestward from Virginia until he reached the Catawba
Indians in the vicinity of modern-day Fort Mill or Camden, South Carolina. The local Waxhaw
Indians might have been the Wisacky people described by Lederer in 1670 (Brown 1966:80).
After Lederer, the next Piedmont explorer of major significance for local ethnohistory is
John Lawson, who crossed the Carolina Piedmont and coastal plain in the winter of 1700-1701.
Like Lederer, Lawson used the Trading Path for much of his journey, but in contrast to Lederer,
he began his journey on the coast of South Carolina and traveled to what is now the Charlotte
area. There he picked up the Trading Path and moved north along the Path until he reached the
Occaneechi village on the Eno River near present-day Hillsborough. Somewhere in the Charlotte
vicinity, Lawson's path took him through the territories of the Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and
Waxhaw Indians, who occupied the project vicinity just before the arrival of European colonists.
Lawson described the Waxhaw as a people "of an extraordinary Stature, and call'd by their
Neighbours flat Heads, which seems a very suitable name for them," since one Waxhaw custom
required that infants have their foreheads bound in a way that led to a permanent, distinctive
flattening of the face and head above the eyes (Lefler 1967:39-50). The Waxhaw gave their
name to this section of Mecklenburg County and the southwestern section of Union County. One

ddikho�l -
ethnohistorian has suggested that the Waxhaw Town visited by Lawson was on Waxhaw Creek in
Lancaster County near Van Wyck, a few miles south of the study area (Brown 1966:97).
In 1715, the Catawba Indians attacked and nearly exterminated the Waxhaw. Some of the
Waxhaw survivors found refuge with the Cheraw, and some moved with the Yamasee to Florida.
Some of the Waxhaw and Cheraw who stayed in North and South Carolina eventually joined the
Catawba (Swanton 1946:206), and a 1750 map of the route to the Catawba territory from South
Carolina shows a "Waxaha" town on the Catawba River, downstream from the main Catawba
settlement (Brown 1966). The Catawba Indians who occupied the Charlotte and Fort Mill area
fared slightly better than most of the smaller Piedmont groups. At an early date, the Catawba
Indians became allies of the English and then of the American colonists, thus managing to secure a
precarious existence in the midst of colonization. After 1760, the Catawba under Chief Hagler
moved their main town to the mouth of Twelve Mile Creek at Van Wyck, South Carolina (Brown
1966:242). In 1763, the Catawba and their attached refugee groups settled south of Charlotte in
a small reservation measuring 15 miles square, a few miles west of Providence. The reservation
was severely reduced in size (to 800 acres) in 1840. Catawba descendants have survived into the
late twentieth century, although much of the Catawba culture, including the Catawba language,
has been lost (Swanton 1946:104-105; Brown 1966).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Background research on the project area included a review of maps and secondary
historical sources in the North Carolina State Archives and in the North Carolina Collection at
UNC Chapel Hill.
The first Europeans in the Charlotte area were probably the late sixteenth century Spanish
soldiers, gold seekers, and missionaries under the command of Juan Pardo. For a brief time in the
1560s, a small force from the Spanish fort at Santa Helena (on the coast of what is now South
Carolina) attempted to subjugate the Indians of western North Carolina while searching for gold
(Hudson 1990). A century -long hiatus in European exploration apparently followed the
unsuccessful Spanish attempt. Later, traders and explorers from the Virginia and South Carolina
colonies, including John Lederer in the 1670s and John Lawson in 1700-1701, visited the area via
the "Trading Path to the Catawba" (probably paralleling Interstate 77) (Lederer 1672; Adams
1980; Lefler 1967).
English, Scotch -Irish, and German settlers started claiming land in the region in the mid
eighteenth century. Most of these immigrants came southward along the Trading Path, although
some came northward from South Carolina (Blythe and Brockman 1961). Land grants in the
neighborhood of the project were made as early as 1764, when Aaron Steel received "450 acres in
Mecklenburg County on the east side of Catauba River in New Providence on Six mile creek, "
and Hugh Houston received 156 acres on Six Mile Creek, also in New Providence (Hofmann
1982:506, 531). These grants were relatively late, because Mecklenburg County had already been
created from Anson County in 1762 (to govern its growing population) and named in honor of

Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, wife of George III. Providence Presbyterian Church
was founded in 1767, and the county seat of Charlotte was incorporated in 1768 (Corbitt
1975:147; Powell 1968; Blythe and Brockman 1961:195).
At first, the settlers were small -stale, subsistence farmers, but the rise of the cotton market
in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries created many changes as farms grew in size
and dependence on slave labor. By the antebellum period, the typical farmstead in this section of
the Piedmont had evolved into a complex of buildings with one or more houses, a barn, a
corncrib, granary, smokehouse, tool shed, harness shed, chicken coop, pigsty, privy, and possibly
a cottonhouse, springhouse, kitchen, and slave quarters (Hood 1983:32-38). In 1790, slaves
made up about 20% of the county's population. By 1850, 40% of the county's population lived in
slavery. Most of the farms were relatively small, self-sufficient tracts of a few hundred acres, but
the county had several large cotton plantations ranging in size from 2,000 to 5,000 acres (Sharpe
1965:1985,1990). Early nineteenth century Mecklenburg County, like most of North Carolina,
saw its population fall dramatically as thousands immigrated to the western territories and left
worn-out farms behind. Between 1830 and 1840, the county lost almost 10% of its population
(Tompkins 1903:203).
Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, some of the plantations broke up into
smaller farms, while others survived with the labor of tenant farmers. The large plantation
centers, with their concentrations of homes, slave quarters, and support buildings, were partly
replaced by a more dispersed pattern of farms occupied by small, independent landowners,
tenants, and sharecroppers (Prunty 1955:478). By the late nineteenth century, cotton was the
mainstay of farms in the county, which ranked third in the state in cotton production (State Board
of Agriculture 1893:163). Cotton remained the major crop until the early twentieth century, but it
began to decline after the arrival of the boll weavil in 1920 (Thompson 1926:174). This intensive
cotton farming was probably responsible for much of the ruinous soil erosion common throughout
the southern Piedmont (Trimble 1974). (This soil erosion has also had an adverse effect on many
of the region's upland prehistoric sites.) The county's first cotton mill was built in 1881 and was
soon followed by many more. The region's industries were energized in the nineteenth century by
the construction of several railroads and in the early twentieth century by the construction of
Duke Power's series of hydroelectric dams on the Catawba River. The county has since become
the most industrialized in the state, with a wide range of manufacturing, transportation,
communications, and banking industries (Sharpe 1965:1976,1991).
One of the most important industries in Mecklenburg County's past was the mining and
processing of gold. Charlotte was at the center of the nation's first gold rush, beginning in the
1820s. Eventually about 100 mines opened up in widely scattered areas throughout the county
(Hanna 1903:116). A branch of the United States Mint was established in Charlotte in 1836 to
handle the region's gold production. During the next quarter-century, the Charlotte Mint coined
five million gold dollars (McCachren 1980:1). Although the gold fields of Mecklenburg County
were overshadowed by the richer gold mines of California discovered in the 1840s, mining
continued on a small scale into the early decades of the twentieth century. Many of these mines
were small, family -operated affairs, played out within a few years, but several were large, well-
financed (and sometimes even profitable) operations. Most of the Mecklenburg County mines

41611. -
had closed by 1900, although a few re -opened briefly during the Depression (Blythe and
Brockman 1961:269). A summary of the known gold mines in North Carolina (Carpenter
1972:33) shows nearly 60 mines in Mecklenburg County and a large number of mines in the
neighboring section of Union County, but no gold mines in the vicinity of the Cato tract. The
nearest recorded mines appear to have been in and near Matthews, Weddington, and Waxhaw.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
A review of the site files in the Office of State Archaeology showed that no archaeological
sites have been recorded within the project area, but several recorded sites are in the project
vicinity. Most of these sites were recorded in 1979 during an archaeological survey for the section
of I-485 bordering the tract on the south (Cooper et al 1979). The types of sites included small,
disturbed Archaic lithic scatters such as 31MK305, 31MK307, 31MK308, and 31MK309.
Historic sites included the Jonesville Zion Church cemetery, 31MK306** (to the west of the
study -tract), and 3INM08**, a log building on the east side of NC 16, opposite the Cato tract.
FIELD METHODS
Since most of the project area is forested, the survey relied heavily on screened shovel
tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet). The shovel tests measured about 35 to 45 cm (14 to 18
inches) across and were excavated into the underlying clay subsoil. The soil from the shovel tests
was screened through 1/4 -inch hardware cloth. In areas with exposed ground surfaces (new drill
rig roads, tree falls, etc.), the surveyors closely examined the area for prehistoric and historic
artifacts. Hurricane Hugo had created hundreds of treefalls in the survey area, which aided the
survey. The recent trails created by the movements of soil drilling rigs also provided many useful
transects across the tract.
We defined a prehistoric site as an area where we found at least one artifact dating to the
prehistoric period (for example, a flake from manufacturing or repairing stone tools, a stone
projectile point, or a potsherd). We defined an historic site as an area containing patterned
evidence of settlement (house foundations or concentrations of building debris and domestic
artifacts, for example) or industry (a mill or still site, for example) dating between colonial
settlement in the mid -eighteenth century and 1949 (the minimum age for National Register of
Historic Places eligibility is 50 years). Practically applied, we would classify, for instance, the
remains of a house, a mill, a bridge, or a foundry dating before 1949 as an archaeological site. An
isolated fragment of whiteware or bottle glass would not be recorded as a site.

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
This section presents the description of the archaeological site recorded during our survey
of the project area. We include information on the site's period of occupation (if known), the
artifacts collected, the techniques used to locate and define the site, some of the relevant
environmental details, indications of preservation or disturbance, potential for future research, and
speculations on the effects of project construction on the site. The site form submitted to the
Office of State Archaeology list additional environmental information (elevation, distance from
water, etc.). Later sections address the question of site significance and recommendations.
The survey recorded one prehistoric archaeological site. Figure 2 shows the location of
the site. The site number is assigned by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) under the national
system of site identification, in which "31" stands for North Carolina, "MK" stands for
Mecklenburg County, and the last number represents the order in which the site was entered into
the OSA site files for that county. The accession number is also assigned by the OSA.
31NM922 (Accession #990201)
Type of site: This prehistoric lithic site is represented by an isolated find — a single quartz
secondary flake. The lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible to assign a date to the site.
How recorded.• During a surface inspection of a recently cleared road for drill rig access, the
surveyors found the flake exposed on the surface. Surface visibility was very good -- about 95%.
Environment: The site is on a ridgetop of eroded Cecil sandy clay loam between two small,
intermittent drainages. The forest in this area is made up of small scrub pine. Shovel tests and
treefalls in the vicinity showed that clay subsoil was at or near the ground surface.
Signs of preservation or.disturbance: Past plowing, soil erosion, and heavy equipment traffic
are the major sources of disturbance.
Research potential: The low density of artifacts and the high degree of disturbance diminish the
potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The site is in an area scheduled for intensive development.
The tract includes a group of mid to late twentieth century buildings centered on a large brick
house built by the Cato family in 1955 (Figure 3).

r►.
Figure 3: The Cato house.

.w
10
$TANDARpS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our evaluations of archaeological significancp come from the published criteria of the National
Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1991) for establishing historic significance for
structures, sites, or gpjects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, craft,
feeling, and association and that:
A. are associated with events thIt have made a signigrant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
B. are as�ocjated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embo4y the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or mp�hod of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that PA�sess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishablf. entity
whose components may lack individual distinctions; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
Some types of properties are usually not eligible for National Register status: properties less than
50 years in age; churches, cemeteries; commemorative items, such as public monuments; and
structures moved from their original locations or substantially altered. If these types of properties
are an integral part of a larger National Register district, they might qualify for National Register
status (National Park Service 1991).
For prehistoric sites, the most relevant criterion is usually "D." Does 31MK922 have the
potential to produce significant information and new insights on the region's prehistoric past? The
site is represented by an isolated quartz flake. The site and its upland vicinity have undergone
severe erosion, probably a result of intensive farming practices in the past. As a small, heavily
disturbed lithic scatter, 31 MK922 is not in our opinion eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
The Cato house, built in 1955, does not meet the 50 -year age criterion of the National
Register and is not in our opinion eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.

11
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since no site on the tract appears to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places, we do not recommend additional archaeological investigations on the tract.

REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1996 An archaeological survey of a 35.842 acre tract of land adjacent to Blakeney -
Heath Road, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. New South Associates,
Mebane, North Carolina.
Adams, Percy G.
1980 Travelers and Travel Liars, 1660-1800. Dover Publications, New York.
12
Anderson, David G.
1989 The Mississippian in South Carolina. In "Studies in South Carolina Archaeology:
Essays in Honor of Robert L.. Stephenson." Edited by Albert C. Goodyear, III,
and Glen T. Hanson. University of South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Anthropological Studies 9.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the South Carolina. Area. In The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and
Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 222 - 237. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Baker, C. Michael, and Linda G. Hall
1986 An archaeological survey and evaluation of the proposed Highway 521
landfill site, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Report on file,
Archaeological Consultants, Weaverville, North Carolina.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and process in the Middle Archaic period of South Carolina.
In "Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L.
Stephenson." Edited by Albert C. Goodyear, III, and Glen T. Hanson.
University of South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Anthropological Studies 9.
Blythe, LeGette, and Charles Raven Brockmann
1961 Hornet's Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
McNally, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Brown, Jane Douglas Summers
1966 The Catawba Indians: The People of the River. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American
Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.

Carpenter, P. Albert
1972 Gold Resources of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Information Circular 21.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5): 1-130.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Cooper, Peter P., James Climo II, and Gwendolyn Pine
1979 An Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Survey of the Charlotte Outer Loop
Highway. Ms. on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Corbitt, David Leroy
1975 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina
Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips
1984 Soil Systems in North Carolina. North Carolina State University,
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin 467.
Hanna, George B.
1903 History of Mining in Mecklenburg County. In Tompkins, Daniel Augustus,
1903: History of Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte (volume 2,
the appendix). Observer Printing House, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An archaeological survey of proposed improvements on the Gastonia sewer
system, Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates.
1996 Archaeological test excavation of 31UN203, Waxhaw vicinity, Union County,
North Carolina. Report submitted to McKim & Creed, Engineers, Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Hearn, W. Edward, and L.L. Brinkley
1912 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Hobbs, Samuel Huntington, Jr.
1930 North Carolina: Economic and Social. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
13

14
Hofmann, Margaret M.
1982 Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764: abstracts of land patgnts.
Roanoke News, Weldon, North Carolina.
Hood, Davyd Foard
1983 The Architecture of Rowan County, North Carolina. Rowan County Manager,
Salisbury.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
1990 The Juan Pardo Eypegitions: Exploration of thf Carolinas and Tennessee,
1566 -1508. Snuthsonian Institution Press, Washington, I.C.
Keel, Bennie C.
1990 S41v4ge Archaeology at the Hardin$ Site, 31 Gs29, Gaston County, North
Carollpa. Soiflhern Indian Studies 39:1-17.
Lederer, John
1672 The discoveries o., f'John 4ederer, in three several marches from Virginia, to the
west of Carolina, and other parts of the continent: begun in March 1669, and
ended in September 1670. Reprinted by Readex Microprint, 1966.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina (by John Lawson). University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
May, Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): A Late
Woodland Farmstead in the Catawba River valley, Gaston County, North
Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 38:23-48.
McCachren, Clifford M.
1980 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
National Park Service
1991 Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms. National Register
Bulletin 16.
Nitze, Henry B., and George B. Hanna
1896 Gold Deposits of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Bulletin 3.
Nitze, Henry B., and H.A.J. Wilkens
1897 Gold Mining in North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Bulletin 10.

15
North Carolina Geological Survey
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Oliver, Billy L.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two.
Southern Indian Studies 25:3-60.
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Prunty, Merle, Jr.
1955 The Renaissance of the Southern Plantation. The Geographical Review 45(4).
Sharpe, Bill
1965 A New Geography of North Carolina (vol. 4). Sharpe Publishing Company,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
State Board of Agriculture
1893 Handbook of North Carolina. Edwards & Broughton, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Steponaitis, Vincas
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970 - 1985.
Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363-404.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137.
Thompson, Edgar T.
1926 Agricultural Mecklenburg and Industrial Charlotte: Social and Economic.
Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Tompkins, Daniel Augustus
1903 History of Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte (volume 2, the
appendix). Observer Printing House, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ward, Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Bulletin 3.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina: an Archaeological Symposium, edited by
Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Willey, Gordon
1966 An Introduction to North American Archaeology: volume 1, North and Middle
America. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
16

BMP Design
FOR
Promenade
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared for
City of Charlotte
February
Submittal
GE.OSCIENCE
GROUP, INC.
500-K Clanton Road
Charlotte,NC 28217
[phone]
4

Project No. DWQ (to he provided by UWQ)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 401 WET DETENTION BASIN WORKSHEET
DWO Stormwater Management Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittal includes a wet detention basin worksheet for each
basin, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all basin and outlet structure details, and a
fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a
request for additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : ?RPmEm PrP0
Contact Person: 6cei-t &MlaoW-r hone Number: ('704 1
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
Basin Bottom Elevation (044 ft.
Permanent Pool Elevation 65 3 ft.
Temporary Pool Elevation
5 ?-
ft.
Permanent Pool Surface Area
sq. ft.
Drainage Area
'7 4. Z
ac.
Impervious Area
17 s
ac.
Permanent Pool Volume
a(o,o75
cu. ft.
Temporary Pool Volume
134. 643
cu. ft.
Forebay Volume
4'2,-'�qO
cu. ft.
SA/DA used
`IZ
Diameter of Orifice
in.
(average elevation of the floor of the basin)
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
(water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(combined volume of main basin and forebay)
(volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
(surface area to drainage area ratio)
(draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stormwater Best Management Practices
manual (N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, November 1995) and
Administrative Code Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008. Initial in the space provided to indicate the
following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If' a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of*why.
Applicants Initials
The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch storm event.
=_4j62— The basin length to width ratio is greater than 3:1.
The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
- A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf at less than 6:1 is provided.
Vegetation to the permanent pool elevation is specified.
�� An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
-� The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the total basin volume.
-6(S— - Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
Access is provided for maintenance.
9R5{ • A minimum 30 -foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet.
A site specific operation and maintenance (O&M) plan is provided.
--556r- A vegetation management/mowing schedule is provided in the 0&M plan.
s Semi-annual inspections are specified in the O&M plan.
--r A debris check is specified in the O&M plan to be performed after every storm event.
A specific sediment clean-out benchmark is listed (elevation or depth) in O&M plan.
A responsible party is designated in the O&M plan.
FORM SWG100 09/97 Page 1 of 1

----- 7Qrin--P -Pr9-yMM--i5__- ,q
- -2- �t�-- - - D• IZ �.x�. w`'
�i ! = Z
' c.
---- r-i
( vh �.,vtoo Sal
�°M��.�.i M'rlf 1`4 �"i.P`dCt��i
z� P� • t r-c-(�21� 2 1��iDS
i
l {�i�-� � t n �
= 1 �i • !
�C
No
6---A-c-
A-c-
--
af� t knF votes
= � _ o. 4q
-74-7,
sA_

M
------(AZ�e
S=4?1b 6=t,c>+
f�¢, -73 Vt-o4
-Z, 5- "`i•2,
�,.� . �-r� �--� Poo�. Env • =- 6 s �
(�� ! y D t 5 G t�`! 2t p, p c-
t�-Z y 6s71za
Q=�
'73
A$X6a�Z
o.�q:
_
„
Y
SpR-�gPSE -t':
Fv26t3r
_ _ .. MAo'4 Poo c�.
cr
_
�
h�,�3�7�: � - _ _ _
is
°la
_
-
°�-

Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
PROJECT: PROMENADE(1" RAINFALL SS)
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE -STORAGE CURVE -PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE -
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE -STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE -STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks" Z"b
S = STORAGE (ft -3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
SOLVING FOR CONSTANTS Ks & b:
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
INCREMENTAL
ACC.
STAGE
ACC.
ELEV.(ft)
AREA(ft^2)
STORAGE(ft^3)
STORAGE(ft^3)
(ft)
STORAGE(act)
653
29850
0
30525
30525
0.70
654
31200
1
31850
62375
1.43
655
32500
2
33100
95475
2.19
656
33700
3
34300
129775
2.98
657
34900
4
SOLVING FOR CONSTANTS Ks & b:

Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
SELECT EXISTING VALUES TO MODEL CONSTANTS BY.
Z1 =
1
Z2 =
4
S1 =
30525
S2 =
129775
b = (In(S2/S1))/(In(Z2/Z1))
b = 1.04
Ks = S2/Z2^b
Ks= 30525
VALIDATION OF STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION:
ACTUAL ACTUAL COMPUTED COMPUTED
STORAGE STAGE STORAGE STAGE
S(ft^3) Z(ft) S(ft^3) Z(ft)
30525.00 1 30525.00 1.00
62375.00 2 62939.51 1.98
95475.00 3 96107.70 2.98
129775.00 4 129775.00 4.00
0 0.00 0.00
THEREFORE THE STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION IS ADEQUATE

PROJECT: Forebay
DESCRIPTION:
Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE -STORAGE CURVE -PROP. forebay
MAIN
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
INCREMENTAL
ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft)
AREA(ft^2)
STORAGE(ft^3)
STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
644
300
1800
1800
646
1500
5000
6800
648
3500
17280
24080
651
8020
19980
43390
652
11780
8820
32900
652
9620
19735
52635
653
29850
forebay
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
INCREMENTAL
ACC. STAGE
ELEV.(ft)
AREA(ft^2)
STORAGE(ft^3)
STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
644
490
2890
2890
646
2400
7360
10250
648
4960
13160
23410
650
8200
19980
43390
652
11780
0
2
4
7
8
9
0
2
4
6
8

Sheet1
Calculate Tc
Pre -Development
First 100' (urban)
Head= 2 ft
mannin_gs= 0.011
--- P2= 3.12 in
Length= 100 ft
So=H/L= 0.020 ft/ft
Eqn 3.3 TR55
Tt=0.007(n L)^0.8/P^.5*So^.4
0.02 hr =
1.23 min.
Remaining 2700 ft
Head= 54 ft
Length= 2700 =
0.511 mi.
So=H/L=
.0.020 ft/ft
V=16.1345S^0.5 Eg0.3.23
croswdm
= 2.281763 fps
Tt=L/3600V Egn.3.15
croswdm
= 0.33 hr =
19.72 min.
Tc=Tt+Tt= 0.35 hr =
20.95 min.
Lag=.6Tc 0.21 hr
Page 1

***************************************
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:44:19
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 HEC -1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE za
ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.. .8.......9......10
1 ID NDITIO
2 ID 3 ID4 IT 1
5 IO 5 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 PH 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10 YEAR
10 KM 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 .4.12 4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0 61
19 UD .21
20 ZZ
1*****************************************
***************************************
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:44:19
*****************************************
***************************************
PRE -DEVELOPED CONDITION
2. YEAR STORM
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 1 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 360 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0559 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0..02 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 5.98 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES
PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES
LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET
FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET
SURFACE AREA ACRES
TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG 0.01667 0.01667 6.00000
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
+ 6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF7. 3.45 2. 2. 2.
0.12
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:47:16
*
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 HEC -1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... .... ..... .9......10
1 ID PRE -DEVELOPED CONDITION
2 ID 10 YEAR STORM
3 ID
4 IT 1 0 0 360
5 IO 5 0 0
6 KK RUNOFF FROM AREA
7 KM 2 YEAR
8 KM 0 0 0.42 0.83 1.45 1.76 1.95
2.28
9 KM 10YEAR
10 PH 0 0 0.59 1.26 2.36 2.9 3.21
3.72
11 KM 25 YEAR
12 KM 0 0 0.68 1.47 2.76 3.4 3.75
4.38
13 KM 50 YEAR
14 KM 0 0 0.75 1.62 3.05 3.78 4.20
4.92
15 KM 100 YEAR
16 KM 0 0 0.83 1.78 3.34 4.12 4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0 61
19 UD .21
20 ZZ
lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* *
x
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 01/26/00 TIME 11:47:16
*
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x*xxxxxxx**xxxxxxxx****xxxxxx**xxxx**xx
PRE -DEVELOPED CONDITION
10 YEAR STORM
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 1 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 360 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0559 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.02 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 5.98 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG
1
BASIN
AREA
0.12
MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION
STAGE MAX STAGE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
0.01667 0.01667 6.00000
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
FLOW PEAK
HYDROGRAPH AT
RUNOFF 56. 3.30
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
8. 8. 8.

Sheet1
Calculate Tc
Post -Development
First 100'
Head= 2 ft
mannings= 0.011
P2= 3.12 in
Length= 100 ft
So=H/L= 0.020 ft/ft
Eqn 3.3 TR55
Tt=0.007(n L)^0.8/P^.5*So^.4
= 0.021 hr
Remaining 2900 ft
L= 2900 ft
h= 54 ft
V = [1.49(R)^2/3(S)1./2]/n (3.25)
assume avg. pipe size=
area =
n=
r=
24 in
3.142 sq.ft.
0.012
0.05
s= 0.018621 ft/ft
V = [1.49(R)^2/3(S)1/2]/n=
2.30 fps
Compute travel time
T=U(3600V) (3.15)
T=L/(3600V) (3.15)= 0.35 hr.
Tc= 0.37 hr.
Lag=.6*Tc 0.22 hr.
i I
i
Developed by: Scott Gregory
2/8/00

Q
_
S
n
toA
Y;
00
M
11
�I
O
O
O
O
O
mMn�N0000
v
otS
N
M
x
co
M
o
0
0
°MC14
°
n
00
0
0
0
0
M
x`
�
c
o
0
0
0
o
n
o
0
0
0
s
tN
�
0
1�•
V
O
O
O00
Loco
m
O
O
O
O
\J
c_
0
6
0
0
o
n
o
0
0
0
11
`Y
�1 -
0
0
0
co
`Nn.
^CR
co
0
0
0
0
a)
3
6
6
0
x
0
m
V
0
0
CO
O
0
0 0
w-
N
0
0
h
V
Co
to
O
O
O
O
N
c-
3
0
0
0
co�
_
a)
0
0
0
0
C
O
O
C5
N
6
N
N
M
O
0
0
0
QO
O
C
00
rn
O
O O
U
N M
O
T
II i�
II Lo
O O
II 11
O
Q 7
Q d'
Ui 0
J Q
N
`-
p
0
0
O
to
O
V
O
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
ce)
Lo
00 co
II
p
3
O
0
O
0
N
Nm
V'
(NO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
Q
(�
C
> O II
>
N II
>
NI
to
II II
E E
> N
N)
it
E
C
o
o
o
o
_
rn
o
0
0
0
E
NI
rn E
O
WI
to O
W
V O
NT 2
(J f
0 0
UJ
to
O
O
o
O
N
N
N
M
o
0
0
0
O �«
.2
N
O
O N
N
m
d
N
0
W
O^
t`
N
(B
y
N
Jf0
y O
(0
(O
y
m
d
O
O
M
N
O
n�
M
to
N
0
O
M
(O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
p
N
x
N N
(D
O
N
M
U)
0
0
C
0
C
Ci
c
Ci
E
x
E CC
C
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
i i
iC
x
O
m
C
•p
O
C
•p
O
O
11)0
O
O
O
O
r
O
n�
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
�1
N�
N
Lq
U
Lq
U�
<
<
<
<—
N p
O
d
ImM
N<
�M
CN <
0
Cl
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
�fl
0
0
0
CD
0
CD
3
T
G.
cot.
O
O
O
O
r
o d
V
L
d
�
L J
Lo J
W
co
00
O
O
O
O
V- d
(O
(q
C
O
(fl
(O
t00
t00
(00
(00
t
`O
0 a
i
0
II
a
0
II
a
O
II 11
00
O
m
II 11�
cc

Prepared by G. SCOTT GREGORY 2/8/00
PROJECT: PROMENADE
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE -STORAGE CURVE -PROP. DETN. BASIN
OBJECTIVE: TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAGE -
STORAGE FUNCTION FOR THIS SITE.
BACKGROUND: THE STAGE -STORAGE FUNCTION RELATES THE ELEVATION
OF THE WATER SURFACE (STAGE) TO THE VOLUME OF THE
WATER STORED (STORAGE).
STAGE -STORAGE EQUATION:
S = Ks*Z^b
S = STORAGE (ft^3)
Z = STAGE (ft)
Ks & b = CONSTANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITE
VOLUME COMPUTATIONS:
COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL STORAGE VOLUME BASED ON CONTOURS
USING AVERAGE END METHOD.
CONTOUR
CONTOUR INCREMENTAL
ACC. STAGE
ACC.
ELEV.(ft)
AREA(ft^2) STORAGE(ft^3)
STORAGE(ft^3) (ft)
STORAGE(act)
657.2
101530
0
81956
81956
1.88
658
103360
0.8
104905
186861
4.29
659
106450
1.8
108260
295121
6.78
660
110070
2.8
I
111330
406451
9.33
661
112590
3•
113964
520414
11.95
662
115337
4•.

Curve Number Calc's
Impervious (Ac.) .36.5
Pervoius (Ac.) 74.2 37.7
Total 74.20 74.2
Curve Number, CN:
Impervious (Ac.) 98 98
Pervoius (Ac.) 61 61
Weighted 61 79.20
(see Drainage Plan)

***************************************
*
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:42:38
*
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES-RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1
PAGE 1
LINE
ID....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4.
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID
4 IT
5 IO 5
6 KK RUNOFF
7 KM 2
8 PH 0
2.28
9 KM 10
10 KM 0
3.72
11 KM 25
12 KM 0
4.38
13 KM 50
14 KM 0
4.92
15 KM 100
16 KM 0
HEC -1 INPUT
PROMENADE WET POND
2 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
0
0
FROM
AREA
YEAR
0
0.42
0.83
1.45
1.76
1.95
YEAR
0
0.59
1.26
2.36
2.9
3.21
YEAR
0
0.68
1.47
2.76
3.4
3.75
YEAR
0
0.75
1.62
3.05
3.78
4.20
YEAR
0
0.83
1.78
3.34
4.12
4.56

5.34
17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4"ORIFICE AND
1'X
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
25 SE 657.2
658
659
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
27 SE 657.2
658
659
28 ST 661
150
3
29 ZZ
***************************************
*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:42:38
* *
*****************************************
***************************************
4' OPENING
6.78
660
33.8
659.5
1.5
PROMENADE WET POND
2 YEAR STORM
9.3
661
78.3 137.5 208.1
660 660.5 661
POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
*

20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING
s *
**************
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
+ 6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 69. 3.30 9. 5. 5.
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 7. 4.80 5. 3. 3.
0.12
658.52 4.80
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
RATIO MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DURATION
TIME OF TIME OF
OF RESERVOIR DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW FAILURE
PMF W.S.ELEV OVER DAM AC -FT CFS HOURS
HOURS HOURS
1.00 658.52 0.00 3. 7. 0.00
4.80 0.00 "OWENr
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

***************************************
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:45:24
*
*****************************************
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES-RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM.
1 HEC -1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID .......
1 .... ...2
....... 3.. .....
4...
.10
1
ID
PROMENADE WET
POND
2
ID
10 YEAR
STORM
POST
DEVELOPED
CONDITION
3
ID
4
IT
2
0
0
300
5
IO
5
0
0
6
KK
RUNOFF
FROM
AREA
7
KM
2
YEAR
8
KM
0
0
0.42
0.83
1.45
1.76
1.95
2.28
9
KM
10
YEAR
10
PH
0
0
0.59
1.26
2.36
2.9
3.21
3.72
11
KM
25
YEAR
12
KM
0
0
0.68
1.47
2.76
3.4
3.75
4.38
13
KM
50
YEAR
14
KM
0
0
0.75
1.62
3.05
3.78
4.20
4.92
15
KM
100
YEAR
16
KM
0
0
0.83
1.78
3.34
4.12
4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE
and 1'X 4'
OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2
658
659
660 661
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2
658
659
659.5 660
28 ST 661
150
3
1.5
29 Z2
***************************************
*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE02/08/00 TIME 12:45:24
* *
*****************************************
***************************************
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
10 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL " 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING

* *
**************
RATIO
MAXIMUM
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL
VARIABLES
MAXIMUM
DURATION
IPRNT
5
PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT
0
PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL
0.
HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW
IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN
HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
W.S.ELEV
PEAK
TIME OF
AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
HOURS
HOURS
OPERATION STATION
FLOW
PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 173. 3.27
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 55. 3.77
0.12
659.74 3.77
6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
23. 14. 14.
18.
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
RATIO
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
DURATION
TIME OF
TIME OF
OF
RESERVOIR
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
PMF
W.S.ELEV
OVER DAM
AC -FT
CFS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
1.00
659.74
0.00
6.
55.
0.00
3.77
0.00
ammommoft
=none
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

1*****************************************
***************************************
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:48:58
*****************************************
X X
XXXXXXX
X X
X
X X
X
XXXXXXX
XXXX
X X
X
X X
X
X X
XXXXXXX
XXXXX X
X X XX
X X
X XXXXX X
X X
X X X
XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES-RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1
PAGE .1
HEC -1 INPUT
LINE
ID.......
1 ....... 2 .......
3 .......
4..
.7
.. .......
....
1
ID
PROMENADE WET
POND
2
ID
50 YEAR
STORM
POST
DEVELOPED
CONDITION
3
ID
4
IT
2
0
5
IO
5
0
0
6
KK
RUNOFF
FROM
AREA
7
KM
2
YEAR
8
KM
0
0
0.42
0.83
1.45
1.76
1.95
2.28
9
KM
10
YEAR
10
KM
0
0
0.59
1.26
2.36
2.9
3.21
3.72
11
KM
25
YEAR
12
KM
0
0
0.68
1.47
2.76
3.4
3.75
4.38
13
KM
50
YEAR
14
PH
0
0
0.75
1.62
3.05
3.78
4.20
4.92
15
KM
100
YEAR
16
KM
.0
0
0.83
1.78
3.34
4.12
4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE
and 1'X 4'
OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2
658
659
660 661
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2
658
659
659.5 660
28 ST 661
150
3
1.5
29 ZZ
1*****************************************
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-
5616Dodson
Dodson& Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:48:58
* *
*****************************************
***************************************
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
50 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
**************
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING

*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
* *
**************
22 KO
OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF
SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC
FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE
FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN
MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA
STAGE MAX STAGE
+
6 -HOUR
24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+
RUNOFF 267. 3.27 35.
21. 21.
0.12
ROUTED TO
+
SPILL 131. 3.60 30.
19. 19.
0.12
660.44
3.60
1
SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH
ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME
STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN
1 ............... INITIAL VALUE
SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20
661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0.
9.
9.
OUTFLOW 1.
208.
208.
RATIO MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM DURATION
.TIME OF
TIME OF
OF RESERVOIR DEPTH STORAGE
OUTFLOW OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW FAILURE
PMF W.S.ELEV OVER DAM AC -FT
CFS HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
1.00 660.44 0.00 8.
131. 0.00
3.60
0.00 -mum% I
fAmomA
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

***************************************
*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS'OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE .02/08/00 TIME 12:51:05
*
***************************************
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X
X X X X X XX
X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73),
HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HECIKW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES-RTIMP- AND-RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED
WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF-AMSKK- ON RM -CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP
81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION,
DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND
AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
1 HEC -1 INPUT
PAGE 1
LINE
ID.......
1 .......
2 ....... 3 .......
4.
.... .......7 ....... .......
.10
1
ID
PROMENADE WET
POND
2
ID
100 YEAR
STORM
POST
DEVELOPED
CONDIT N
3
ID
4
IT
2
0
5
IO
5
0
0
6
KK
RUNOFF
FROM
AREA
7
KM
2
YEAR
8
KM
0
0
0.42
0.83
.1.45
1.76
1.95
2.28
9
KM
10
YEAR
10
KM
0
0
0.59
1.26
2.36
2.9
3.21
3.72
11
KM
25
YEAR
12
KM
0
0
0.68
1.47
2.76
3.4
3.75
4.38
13
KM
50
YEAR
14
KM
0
0
0.75
1.62
3.05
3.78
4.20
4.92
15
KM
100
YEAR
16
PH
0
0
0.83
1.78
3.34
4.12
4.56
5.34

17 BA .12
18 LS 0
79.2
19 UD .22
20 KK SPILLWAY
ROUTING
21 KM 4" ORIFICE
and 1'X 4'
OPENNING
22 KO 0
23 RS 1
ELEV
657.2
24 SV 0
1.88
4.29
6.78 9.3
25 SE 657.2
658
659
660 661
26 SQ .9
1
13.1
33.8 78.3
27 SE 657.2
658
659
659.5 660
28 ST 661
150.
3
1.5
29 2Z
1*****************************************
***************************************
*
*
*
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1)
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* MAY 1991
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* 609 SECOND STREET
* Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* Dodson & Associates, Inc.
* [phone]
* RUN DATE 02/08/00 TIME 12:51:05
***************************************
137.5 208.1
660.5 661
PROMENADE WET POND
100 YEAR STORM POST DEVELOPED CONDITION
5 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE
ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME
NQ 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE
NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
**************
* *
20 KK * SPILL * WAY ROUTING

* *
**************
22 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ RUNOFF 306. 3.27
0.12
ROUTED TO
+ SPILL 164. 3.53
0.12
660.69 3.53
6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR
40. 24. 24.
35. 21. 21.
1 SUMMARY OF DAM OVERTOPPING/BREACH ANALYSIS FOR STATION
SPILL
(PEAKS SHOWN ARE FOR INTERNAL TIME STEP USED DURING BREACH
FORMATION)
PLAN 1 ............... INITIAL VALUE SPILLWAY CREST TOP OF
DAM
ELEVATION 657.20 661.00
661.00
STORAGE 0. 9.
9
OUTFLOW 1. 208.
208.
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***
RATIO
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
DURATION
TIME OF
TIME OF
OF
RESERVOIR
DEPTH
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
OVER TOP
MAX OUTFLOW
FAILURE
PMF
W.S.ELEV
OVER DAM
AC -FT
CFS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
1.00
660.69
0.00
9.
164.
0.00
3.53
0.00
sommmom»
*** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 ***

Worksheet
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet outlet pipe
Flow Element Circular Chann<
Method Manning's Forrr
Solve For Full Flow Diame
Input Data
Mannings Coeffic 0.012
Slope 005000 ft/ft
Discharge 131.00 cfs
Results
Depth 4.27 ft U-76 r'"OP
Diameter 5�t-
Wetted
Flow Area 1. Perime 0.00 ft
Top Width 0.00 ft
Critical Depth 3.40 ft
Percent Full 100.0 %
Critical Slope 005274 ft/ft
Velocity 9.15 ft/s
Velocity Head 1.30 ft
Specific Energ, 5.57 ft
Froude Numbe 0.00
Maximum Disc 140.92 cfs
Discharge Full 131.00 cfs
Slope Full 005000 ft/ft
Flow Type N/A
Project Engineer: Scott Gregory
untitled.fm2 GeoScience Group FlowMaster v6.0 [614e]
02/08/00 01:32:01 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

IRAN
I
m
78
Ml
TERSTA E
R?,_S j

A
CDENR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 7, 2000
Memorandum To: Dave Penrose
From: Todd St. John
Subject: Childress -Klein
DWQ 991173
Mecklenburg County
I have reviewed the plans for the stream mitigation and the stormwater pond with
the surrounding wetland mitigation (again):
1) Stormwater pond design, dated February 22, 2000, appears to be adequate. The side
slopes of the berm between the wetland mitigation site and the pond are 2:1.
However, the berm is not tall and will likely be stable because the only runoff over
the berm will be from rain that falls on the berm itself. One side has a retaining wall. I
have been informed that that side will be fenced. Also, there is a vegetative shelf.
2) The applicant still needs to provide a signed and notarized O&M agreement for the
pond.
3) The proposed wetland mitigation plan seems adequate. Some or most of the
hydrology will be provided by the temporary pool discharge from the stormwater
treatment pond. As such, it is recommended that a flow path be provided through the
wetland from the stormwater pond temporary pool outlet that will cause the water to
pass through the majority of the wetland before it leaves the wetland. It is not
recommended the temporary pool outlet be changed from the location indicated in the
stormwater pond plans dated February 22, 2000.
4) The stream restoration plans are unique due to the nature of the stream section to be
restored. It is suggested that plan details form the under bed grade control structures
be obtained for the file. I also recommend that we approve the plan provided that the
biological monitoring requirements meet our requirements.
Anyway, all I need is the detail for the grade control structures proposed for the stream
restoration and the O&M agreement for the stormwater pond.

AW 'IL
LEONARD S RINDNE& PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Landscape Architectur& ' Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning [phone]
February 15, 2000
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801- 5006
Mr. John R. Dorney
Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road i%a ROUP
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Todd St. John
Division of Water Quality - NCDENR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Strum Restoration Pian - Action ID # 199931212 / NCDWQ #991173 - ± 51
Arg Site at the Intersection of 1485, Providence Road, and Ballantyne Commons
Parkway (The Promenade)
Dear Sirs:
At the request of Childress Klein, Inc., I am forwarding to you the Stream Assessment
and Restoration Plan for your review and approval. We believe that this plan has
significant long term water quality and habitat value. We are looking forward to
implementing this important and creative mitigation plan.
1
Please let me know if you have any questions or require further explanation. t,
Thanks. i
Sincere 'p\
✓ eonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant \

,M► Y
}
W
Q'
Z
H
_N
R
W

N
t!1
O �
CL
a
W�gfs.Dt.
I— w
Sa � w 76/2•
i
X
O
CL
CL
a
J
a
LU
a
O
w
CL
cn
Z
usU
w
Z
LU
3
LU
IN
U.
Z
O
c
w
z
O
U.
U-
O
CL
m
j
O
w
w
�'
U
Z
a
®
U�
LU
LU
cn
=
Z
FE
O
y
N
H
cn
m
LU
O
O
w
LLI3
O
U
uj
LL
i
cn
LL
z
Z
m
w
O
_y
x
�
%4jj'
M
w
`L
Q
3w
J
a
LU
a
O
w
CL
cn
Z
usU
w
Z
LU
3
LU
IN
H
CL
LU
Z
O
U
Z
O
O
Lo
NwN
YCL
a
LU
U.
J°w
c
w
O
O
N
CL
W
O
w
w
w
L
a
U�
LL
y
Z
m
O
Z
N
H
cn
m
Q
O
O
w
O
U
cn
LUH
QLU
Z
w
�
g
�
y
Q
3w
N
Z Z
O
a x
C7 w
H
Z
O
O
LU
L
J
Q
UJ
M
r
W
+I
H
CL
LU
Z
O
U
Z
O
O
Lo
NwN
YCL
a
LU

V
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. It is issued to Childress
Klein Associates resulting in 1.24 acres of wetland impact and 1,580 linear feet of stream impact
in Mecklenberg County pursuant to construct a commercial/residential development at I-485,
Ballantyne Commons Parkway and Providence Road.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of Flat Branch Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre
or total perennial stream impact exceeds 150 feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow
the conditions listed below. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
control, Coastal Stormwater, Non -discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of two manuals, either the "North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual" (available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices). The control practices shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and
reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
4. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or other waters, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;

Compensatory mitigation shall be done in accordance with February 23, 2000
"Wetlands Mitigation Design" and the February 14, 2000 "Stream Assessment
and Restoration Plain" submitted by your consultants. However additional DWQ
approval is needed for a stream restoration & monitoring plan. Also, a flow path
should be provided from the stormwater pond outlet through the wetland
mitigation site to insure diffuse flow.
6. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with
remaining jurisdictional wetlands and streams to notify the state in order to
assure compliance for future wetland and/or water impact. These mechanisms
shall be put in place within 30 days of the date of this letter or the issuance of the
404 Permit (whichever is later).
7. The proposed extended detention pond that serves the entire commercial portion of this
project as specified in the plans provided on your behalf by Geoscience and dated
February 22, 2000, shall be constructed and operational before any building on that
portion of this project is occupied. Also, a signed (by the responsible party) and
notarized Operational and Maintenance Agreement for the above pond must be received
by this office before any impacts to wetlands, waters, or streams are conducted.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area
Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 13 day of March 2000
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
E'
WQC# 3217

500-K Clanton Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Fax)
On E LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Mir .odd St. John Date: March 10, 2000
`ISivision of Water Quality Re:
4401 Reedy Creek Road Promenade
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Wet Pond
Maintenance Agreement
Attn:
Geo#: 28054.00
WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: Attached
Draft Report Prints Plans
Change order Copy of Report Proposal
Other X
Letter Preliminary Data
NUMBER OF COPIES 1
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED:
As requested
For review and comment
x For your approval
For your use
REMARKS:
Shop Drawings
Under separate cover
Specifications
No Exceptions Taken
Exceptions Noted, Revise and Proceed
Exceptions Noted, Revise and Resubmit
Rejected
It is my understanding based on our meeting in the field that the design for the pond is
acceptable. Please find attached the completed maintenance agreement.
Kevin Caldwell
• CHARLOTTE • GREENSBORO • RALEIGH

POND MAINTENANCE PLAN
Project Name: Promenade —Wet Detention Basin
Responsible Party: Childress Klein Properties
2800 One First Union Center
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Steve Hoots
704-342-9000
1. On a monthly basis or after every runoff -producing rainfall event, the following will
occur.
• Remove debris from the spillway and outlet channel.
• Check the side slopes of the pond and remove trash and debris and repair any
eroded areas before the next rainfall event.
2. On a quarterly basis, the following will occur.
• The open channels which discharge to the pond will be checked for debris and
trash to insure proper operation.
• Check the spillway system and remove trash and debris.
• Reseed grassed swales, pond side slopes and outlet channel as necessary.
3. Every 6 months the following will occur:
• Remove accumulated sediments from the outlet structure.
• Check the pond depth at various points in the pond. If the depth is reduced to
75% of its original design depth, the sediment will be removed to restore the
pond's original depth.
4. Generally the pond will be maintained as follows:
• Pond side slopes will be mowed except for the vegetated shelf according to the
season. Maximum grass height will be 6 inches.
• Cattails and other indigenous wetland plants will be removed when and if they
cover the entire surface area of the pond.
• All components of the pond system will be kept in good working order.
5. Should the pond need to be drained for maintenance or other reasons, the owner will
utilize a six inch pump to accomplish this task.

I, Steve Hoots, for Childress Klein Properties., hereby acknowledge that I am the
financially responsible part for maintenance of this detention pond. I will perform the
maintenance as outlined above, as part of the Certification of Compliance with Storm Water
Regulations received for this project.
Signature: C
Date: -T`10 — 00
I-) a Notary Public for the State of North Carolina,
County of do hereby certify thatJZZ�P� �.
, ]
� a000
personally appeared before me this �(day of y�'�� , tea, and
acknowledge the due execution of this foregoing instrument. V�,ji�x*Sb'+d�dpfficial seal,
.•`��` %NDA @ �''•.
`, •�•'u• •Ole
SEAL n A� 1- : U
�eLIC :'2:ftft
y•.
My commission expires O ��'�G9Ci COv��.•`��
+�+qu l l$%t�

A
Fax
To,
Fax Number:
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR
919-733-9959
From: Shelly Crump
Childress Klein Properties
Construction Division
Date: February 29, 2000
Number of Pages: 2 including this cover page.
CHILDRESS Kum
P R 0? E R T I E 5
�i
Please note the address on the attached letter is incorrect. Please change your
records to the following:
2800 One First Union Center
301 S. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6021
Please call me at [phone] should you have any questions, Thank you!
2800 One First Union Center 301 South College Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
PH: 704.342.9000 FX: 704.342.9039
TO 'd 00: ST OOOZ 6Z qa3 6206MM� -T : xE3 'dOdd NI3'1A SS3da-1IH0

AV • Mk
1
State of North Caroiina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
�A&Td1UTRB'6B-1PT-REQV.zSTED
Childress Klein Properties
2850 One First Union Creek
301 South College Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-6021
Dear Str orMadam;
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESQURCES
February 23, 2000
DWQ Project 41921a3 1
Mecklenburg County
On February 11, 2000 the Division of Water Quality (I)WQ) was notified by receipt of your
storunweter plan regarding your plan to fill wetlands for the purpose of commerciaUresidential development
at Providence Road at 1-495 in Mecklenburg County, Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these
wetlands.
Please call me at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions or would require Copies of our ;vies or
procedural materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H..502(c), The processing time for this application will begin when this information is received,
e
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington Corps of Engineers
File Copy
Central Files
Kevin Caldwell — Geo -Science Group, Inc.500 Clanton Road, Suite K, Charlotte, NC 28217
991173,Childmgmd
Wedands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh. North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX N 733-9959
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% tecy01600% post consumer paper
ZO 'd 00: ST 0006 6Z qe3 606Zti�tr02-T : XeJ 'JMJd NI31A SS32JUIH0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Childress Klein Properties
2850 One First Union Center
301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6021
Dear Mr. Sirs:
1 � •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 3, 1999
1 DWQ # 991173
Mecklenburg County
r
J
On 27 October 1999 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of a.
copy of your Individual Permit application regarding your plan to fill wetland for the purpose of
commercial development in Mecklenburg County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb
these wetlands. Your permit application refers to a mitigation plan. We will need three copies
of this plan to complete our review. Also, details for the extended stormwater wetland will be
needed to allow us to ensure it's proper design.
In addition, the N.C. General Assembly enacted a new law effective January 1, 1999
which requires fees for 401 Water Quality Certifications. If the impact is equal to or less than
one acre of wetland (or waters) or 150 feet of streams, payment of $200.00 is required. If the
proposed fill exceeds these thresholds; the fee is $475.00. Checks should be made payable to the
N.C. Division of Water Quality and sent in with the application.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would require copies of our
rules or procedural materials.
Ser ly,
.I
[ 6y
Jo R. Doyne'
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington Corps of Engineers
John Dorney
Central Files
pnd
Division of Water Quality • Non-Disharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Action ID No. 199931212
q q iro
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps ole s
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
PUBLIC NOTICE
October 7, 1999
CHILDRESS KLEIN' PROPERTIES, 2800 ONE FIRST UNION CENTER, 301 SOUTH
COLLEGE STREET, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202-6021, has applied for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit TO CULVERT AND BACKFILL APPROXIMATELY
2,240 LINEAR FEET OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO FLAT BRANCH AND
APPROXIMATELY 1.24 ACRES OF FORESTED HEADWATER WETLANDS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMODATING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A 52.25 ACRE TRACT AT
THE INTERSECTION OF I-485, BALLANTYNE COMMONS PARKWAY, AND
PROVIDENCE ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show a proposal to discharge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of
fill material into approximately 2,240 linear feet of headwater, intermittent stream channel and
approximately 1.24 acres of forested, headwater wetlands. Of the 2,240 linear feet of stream
channel to be impacted, approximately 660 linear feet of the channel was determined to have
"unimportant" aquatic function. This indicates that this portion of channel has very low or no
water quality or aquatic life function. The forested and scrub/shrub headwater wetland areas are
dominated by facultative, facultative wet, and obligate plant species. Woody species include
willow oak, green ash, red maple, alder, silky dogwood, spicebush, and sweetgum. The rest of
the site is almost entirely in upland woodland use. The streams and wetlands originate on the
property at the very head of the Flat Branch drainage system. Flow to the main stem of Flat
Branch just downstream from the lower end of the project site is cut off by I-485. Drainage from
the site passes under the interstate through a 48 -inch concrete culvert. Since Ballantyne
Commons Parkway and Providence Road are on the ridgeline, the upstream watershed is
minimal. The extensive grading required to prepare the site for development would impact the
streams and wetlands on this upper watershed area.
In order to compensate for the proposed impacts to waters of the United States, the applicant has
submitted with the required permit application, conceptual plans showing proposed wetland and
stream channel mitigation. Should the requested permit be issued, the applicant intends to
implement a final mitigation plan concurrent with project construction. The conceptual
mitigation plan proposes the construction of approximately 1.24 acres of wetlands on the lower
end of the property, preservation of 18 to 20 acres of upland swamp forest with additional upland

F0
t
"'Al
buffer, restoration of approximately 1,600 linear feet of severely degraded stream channel
(including buffer establishment); and enhancement of additional somewhat degraded stream
channel (and buffer). Stream restoration goals for the degraded reach would include restoring
and creating a self sustaining stable channel, improving habitat, and using natural materials to
improve aesthetics. The preservation and restoration/enhancement sites are located just
downstream from the project site in the Flat Branch watershed. A permanent conservation
easement would be placed on the mitigation property.
Plans showing the work are included with this public notice. The referenced stream and wetland
conceptual mitigation plans are available upon request and can be obtained by calling or writing
this office at the telephone/address listed below. The purpose of the work is to prepare the site
for development.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the applicant
to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state,
with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity will
affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts, which the proposed activity may have on the public interest,
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
OJI

against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and
if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the
outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply
with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding
sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies
and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) plans to take final action in the
issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after October 22, 1999.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
3

NCDENR-DWQ-Wetlands Section 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1621, on or before October 22, 1999, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this office,
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m., October 29, 1999, or telephone [phone].
4

PINEVILLE
CHARLOTTE,�r,.''
b�
SITE MINT HILL
MATTHEWS
Gs�
N V WEDDINGTON
Z
a
W .
V
L
a
0
a
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Providence Road'at 1485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. # 1999 312-12-
-2
1212-
2

1 un4ATwN SITE wcAnomuSGS
Providence Road at I-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Clfildress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. # 1449312 12—
,I
Sheet ? of i

I JAMES B. HUNTJRF'J
k4 -GOVERNOR
Vf '
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DivISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
October 12, 1999
. L
Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
DM: Douglas V. Huggett
Inland "404" Coordinator
: "404" Project Review
ie attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199931212 dated
.tober 7, 1999 describing a proposed project by Childress Klein Properties --Charlotte is
ing circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or
ction 10 permits.
ise indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
n by 11/1/99. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
Y This office supports the project proposal.
No comment:
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 27611-7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 O% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
• �o
ie attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199931212 dated
.tober 7, 1999 describing a proposed project by Childress Klein Properties --Charlotte is
ing circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or
ction 10 permits.
ise indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
n by 11/1/99. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
Y This office supports the project proposal.
No comment:
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 27611-7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 O% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

B. HUNTJR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
October 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
Douglas V. Huggett
Inland 11404" Coordinator
"404" Project Review
attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199931212 dated
>ber 7, 1999 describing a proposed project by Childress Klein Properties --Charlotte is
g circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or
ion 10 permits.
Ise indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
a by 11/1/99. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
Y This office supports the project proposal.
No comment:
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 27611-768712728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

ri
Action ID No. 199931212
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
PUBLIC NOTICE
October 7, 1999
CHILDRESS KLEIN PROPERTIES, 2800 ONE FIRST UNION CENTER, 301 SOUTH
COLLEGE STREET, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202-6021, has applied for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit TO CULVERT AND BACKFILL APPROXIMATELY
2,240 LINEAR FEET OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO FLAT BRANCH AND
APPROXIMATELY 1.24 ACRES OF FORESTED HEADWATER WETLANDS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMODATING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A 52.25 ACRE TRACT AT
THE INTERSECTION OF I-485, BALLANTYNE COMMONS PARKWAY, AND
PROVIDENCE ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show a proposal to discharge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of
fill material into approximately 2,240 linear feet of headwater, intermittent stream channel and
approximately 1.24 acres of forested, headwater wetlands. Of the 2,240 linear feet of stream
channel to be impacted, approximately 660 linear feet of the channel was determined to have
"unimportant" aquatic function. This indicates that this portion of channel has very low or no
water quality or aquatic life function. The forested and scrub/shrub headwater wetland areas are
dominated by facultative, facultative wet, and obligate plant species. Woody species include
willow oak, green ash, red maple, alder, silky dogwood, spicebush, and sweetgum. The rest of
the site is almost entirely in upland woodland use. The streams and wetlands originate on the
property at the very head of the Flat Branch drainage system. Flow to the main stem of Flat
Branch just downstream from the lower end of the project site is cut off by I-485. Drainage from
the site passes under the interstate through a 48 -inch concrete culvert. Since Ballantyne
Commons Parkway and Providence Road are on the ridgeline, the upstream watershed 'is
minimal. The extensive grading required to prepare the site for development would impact the
streams and wetlands on this upper watershed area.
In order to compensate for the proposed impacts to waters of the United States, the applicant has
submitted with the required permit application, conceptual plans showing proposed wetland and
stream channel mitigation. Should the requested permit be issued, the applicant intends to
implement a final mitigation plan concurrent with project construction. The conceptual
mitigation plan proposes the construction of approximately 1.24 acres of wetlands on the lower
end of the property, preservation of 18 to 20 acres of upland swamp forest with additional upland

buffer, restoration of approximately 1,600 linear feet of severely degraded stream channel
(including buffer establishment), and enhancement of additional somewhat degraded stream
channel (and buffer). Stream restoration goals for the degraded reach would include restoring
and creating a self sustaining stable channel, improving habitat, and using natural materials to
improve aesthetics. The preservation and restoration/enhancement sites are located just
downstream from the project site in the Flat Branch watershed. A permanent conservation
easement would be placed on the mitigation property.
Plans showing the work are included with this public notice. The referenced stream and wetland
conceptual mitigation plans are available upon request and can be obtained by calling or writing
this office at the telephone/address listed below. The purpose of the work is to prepare the site
for development.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the applicant
to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state,
with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity will
affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts, which the proposed activity may have on the public interest,
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced

i
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and
if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the
outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply
with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding
sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies
and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) plans to take final action in the
issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after October 22, 1999.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
3

NCDENR-DWQ-Wetlands Section 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1621, on or before October 22, 1999, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this office,
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m., October 29, 1999, or telephone [phone].

PINEVILLE
I
a
CHARLOTTE
MINT HILL
SITE
MATTHEWS
�t
CY
Gs
y V WEDDINGTON
O �
O
W .
V
W
O
O
C
a
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Providence Road -at I485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Cbildress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. # I �q 312i 2
Sleet ( o f

mmGATION SITE LQCATIwusGS
Providence Road at 1-485 Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Childress Klein Properties
Date: September 10, 1999
Action I.D. #194931 2 12-
Sheet %
f/�\• �\\ � V V� V � 471 � C
;,C