20100568 Ver 1_More Info Received_20101214

10- ° ? LP ? 09--
Alan - I don't have a copy of the permit - but it was for 148 If of stream and .02 acres of
wetlands. It was issued in February 2007. In 2009 they requested .03 acres to create
Lot 98 in a small wetland that was detached from the larger wetland that was being
created. I recall that the dam was not in the best of shape and the developer didn't want
the cost of the dam - plus the I think City would not let him put the road on the dam.
I?
I V?IJ
DEC 14 2010
*l1MO-MTROMM
OXH
is )?- ehc fwe-
YkeJ - /D- dSG?
U?1-. 1 ?--- Wr"S
lea d? ? r t- sp AV's t"5 S ( 6k-"
` Y
P6 nd
"L?,`4dC as "L rl00 -T I
o h VLee ? ek- dr--V jo a ??

From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:36 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: Darrin Peine
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Take a look at the revised draft. If it looks good we should be able to get it all sent out tomorrow morning.
Thanks.
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:32 PM
To: David Homans
Cc: Darrin Peine; Joey Lawler
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
I did a some digging and I found the same 2007 "flood" aerial. Since the developer indicated the 12/08 pond breach
date and we don't have any other indicators of the date, let's assume the December 2008 breach date (leave as is). Let's
go ahead and include the 2005 and 2007 aerial photos with a note indicating the 2007 photo was taken shortly after a
storm event and that the extent of the pond is exaggerated by this photo. Please make this and other revisions and
forward and updated draft for review ASAP. Thanks.
Isaac
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:15 AM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: Darrin Peine; Joey Lawler
Subject: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Isaac-
Attached is the draft of the Enclave Pond JD. The check for DWQ has been cut, so we should be able to get it out right
away once we get any edits from you.
Thanks.
Dave Homans
Natural Resources Staff Professional
ENGINEERING INTEGRITY.
SO E, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte NC 28273
Ph: 704-523-4726
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
dhomans a_,smeinc.com
www.smeinc.com
This electronic message and its attachments are forwarded to you for convenience and "for information only." The message may represent a summary
with limitations, conditions and further explanations omitted in the interest of brevity and time constraints. The contents of this electronic message and
any attachments may be preliminary and incomplete, subject to review and revision. If this electronic transmittal contains Findings, Conclusions or
Recommendations, S&ME, Inc. will submit a follow-up hard copy via mail or overnight delivery for your records, and this hard copy will serve as the final
record. In the event of conflict between electronic and hard copy documents, the hard copy will govern. This electronic message and any attachments

Johnson, Alan
From: Hinson, Isaac [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Alan,
I spoke with our project manager and below (in red) are his and my responses to you concerns for Enclave Pond. Please
let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.
Isaac
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Thanks. Items discussed plus a couple of more thoughts:
1) Can the pond surface area be reduced but the depth increased? The pond was designed the way it was for
several reasons. As this is a maintenance project, we wanted to re-establish or maintain the original pond
footprint as much as possible. It isn't possible to re-establish the entire pond footprint due to post-breach fill by
the developer so our design proposes to excavate a deeper and smaller pond within the old pond footprint. We
had to be careful and balance decreasing the pre-breach pond area too much (we are decreasing the pre-breach
pond area by 0.44 acre) while not extending the pond into pre-breach wetlands/streams. while still limiting
outflow during peak flows. The proposed pond also has to limit outflows during peak flows and provide enough
storage to prevent downstream flooding. There are 2 culverts immediately downstream of the pond and we
cannot create a situation where flooding worsens because that would be a major liability on the part of the City.
This isn't a storm water treatment design standard, but does address flood concerns.
2) If this is being designed to SW standards, does this make this a SW pond? Otherwise what standard is being
utilized. The primary purpose is to maintain/re-establish a previously existing pond for the neighborhood. The
main standards that are being incorporated are pond/dam safety standards (see discussion of flood control
above). An additional design component is the proposed safety bench around the outside of the pond.
3) If allowed to be constructed can the natural vegetation be maintained for the littoral zone and widened.
Grading and clearing outside the footprint of the pond was minimized. The buffer along the southern and
eastern portions of the pond will largely remain intact. We will obviously lose a lot of the willows that have
sprung up in the old pond bed, but the upstream wetlands will remain and I suspect that these plants will readily
- - re-colonize the safety-bench and shallow pond areas. -The main access point-will-be from the driveway/dam -
embankment, which will help minimize impacts to areas adjacent to the pond.
4) Will the existing wetland provide similar benefits as the proposed pond (whatever the proposed purpose/need
is set forth). There again, if designing for SW purposes this would be an in line SW pond, which are not allowed.
Again, this is a maintenance project and we are just re-establishing what existed less than 2 years ago, or at least
as close as we can get it given the subsequent development. One of our concerns is that the rip rap berm at the
downstream end of the wetland is not stable and will eventually wash out during a storm event. This berm is
what is allowing the wetland to remain and preventing the area from channelizing. The City doesn't want to
inherit a washed out and eroded channel and future flooding/erosion problems with the 2 culverts immediately
downstream. While a restored wetland is an attractive option, a pond is what was previously present and what
the residents will allow.
a.
AJ Z_?
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]. nc. us]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:15 PM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: 'David Homans'
Subject: FW: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Alan,
Per your request, attached is the impacts figure with the current/breached aerial photo. Please let me know if you need
anything else from me and thanks for meeting with me today.
Isaac
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
That's what I figured. See attached.
Thanks.
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:09 PM
To: David Homans
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
The 2010 breached aerial please.
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
What date for the aerial? It should just take me a few minutes...
Thanks
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:57 PM
To: David Homans
Cc: 'Peine, Darrin'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Met with Alan today at Enclave Pond. He requested that we prepare and submit Figure 5 with an aerial coverage. Can
you guys generate this and forward me a PDF? I will forward it on to him. Thanks.
Isaac
2
Sl

Johnson, Alan
From: Hinson, Isaac [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Alan,
I spoke with our project manager and below (in red) are his and my responses to you concerns for Enclave Pond. Please
let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.
Isaac
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Thanks. Items discussed plus a couple of more thoughts:
1) Can the pond surface area be reduced but the depth increased? The pond was designed the way it was for
several reasons. As this is a maintenance project, we wanted to re-establish or maintain the original pond
footprint as much as possible. It isn't possible to re-establish the entire pond footprint due to post-breach fill by
the developer so our design proposes to excavate a deeper and smaller pond within the old pond footprint. We
had to be careful and balance decreasing the pre-breach pond area too much (we are decreasing the pre-breach
pond area by 0.44 acre) while not extending the pond into pre-breach wetlands/streams. while still limiting
outflow during peak flows. The proposed pond also has to limit outflows during peak flows and provide enough
storage to prevent downstream flooding. There are 2 culverts immediately downstream of the pond and we
cannot create a situation where flooding worsens because that would be a major liability on the part of the City.
This isn't a storm water treatment design standard, but does address flood concerns.
2) if this is being designed to SW standards, does this make this a SW pond? Otherwise what standard is being
utilized. The primary purpose is to maintain/re-establish a previously existing pond for the neighborhood. The
main standards that are being incorporated are pond/dam safety standards (see discussion of flood control
above). An additional design component is the proposed safety bench around the outside of the pond.
3) if allowed to bw constructed can the natural vegetation be maintained for the littoral zone and widened.
Grading and clearing outside the footprint of the pond was minimized. The buffer along the southern and
eastern portions of the pond will largely remain intact. We will obviously lose a lot of the willows that have
sprung up in the old pond bed, but the upstream wetlands will remain and I suspect that these plants will readily
-re-colonize ,the-safety Bench and shallow pond areas.- The main access pointwill be fromthe driveway/clam
embankment, which will help minimize impacts to areas adjacent to the pond.
4) Will the existing wetland provide similar benefits as the proposed pond (whatever the proposed purpose/need
is set forth). There again, if designing for SW purposes this would be an in line SW pond, which are not allowed.
Again, this is a maintenance project and we are just re-establishing what existed less than 2 years ago, or at least
as close as we can get it given the subsequent development. One of our concerns is that the rip rap berm at the
downstream end of the wetland is not stable and will eventually wash out during a storm event. This berm is
what is allowing the wetland to remain and preventing the area from channelizing. The City doesn't want to
inherit a washed out and eroded channel and future flooding/erosion problems with the 2 culverts immediately
downstream. While a restored wetland is an attractive option, a pond is what was previously present and what
the residents will allow.

AJ
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:15 PM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: 'David Homans'
Subject: FW: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Alan,

Per your request, attached is the impacts figure with the current/breached aerial photo. Please let me know if you need
anything else from me and thanks for meeting with me today.
Isaac
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
That's what I figured. See attached.
Thanks
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:09 PM
To: David Homans
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
The 2010 breached aerial please.
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
What date for the aerial? It should just take me a few minutes...
Thanks.
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:57 PM
To: David Homans
Cc: 'Peine, Darrin'
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Met with Alan today at Enclave Pond. He requested that we prepare and submit Figure 5 with an aerial coverage. Can
you guys generate this and forward me a PDF? I will forward it on to hire. Thanks.
Isaac
2
4.
+
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:36 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: Darrin Peine
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Take a'.cok at the revised draft. If it looks good we should be able to get it all sent out tomorrow morning.
Thanks.
-Dave
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:32 PM
To: David Homans
Cc: Darrin Peine; Joey Lawler
Subject: RE: Draft Enclave Pond JD
I did a some digging and I found the same 2007 "flood" aerial. Since the developer indicated the 12/08 pond breach
date and we don't have any other indicators of the date, let's assume the December 2008 breach date (leave as is). Let's
go ahead and include the 2005 and 2007 aerial photos with a note indicating the 2007 photo was taken shortly after a
storm event and that the extent of the pond is exaggerated by this photo. Please make this and other revisions and
forward and updated draft for review ASAP. Thanks.
Isaac
From: David Homans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:15 AM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: Darrin Peine; Joey Lawler
Subject: Draft Enclave Pond JD
Isaac-
Attached is the draft of the Enclave Pond JD. The check for DWQ has been cut, so we should be able to get it out right
away once we get any edits from you.
Thanks
Dave Hornans
Natural Resources Staff Professional
ENGINEERING INTEGRITY.
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte NC 28273 T`'
Ph: 704-523-4726
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
dhomans(a,smeinc. com
www.smeinc.com
This electronic message and its attachments are forwarded to you for convenience and "for information only." The message may represent a summary
with limitations, conditions and further explanations omitted in the interest of brevity and time constraints. The contents of this electronic message and
any attachments may be preliminary and incomplete, subject to review and revision. If this electronic transmittal contains Findings, Conclusions or
Recommendations, S&ME, Inc. will submit a follow-up hard copy via mail or overnight delivery for your records, and this hard copy will serve as the final
record. In the event of conflict between electronic and hard copy documents, the hard copy will govern. This electronic message and any attachments
3
T4?
Johnson, Alan
From: Hinson, Isaac [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 3:14 PM
To: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Cc: Johnson, Alan-, Chapin, Stephen SAW
Subject: RE: Enclave Pond and Use of NWP3
That's OK. I knew this would be iffy. I'll discuss it internally than coordinate with Steve and Alan. Thanks for the
clarification.
Isaac
From: Jones, Amanda D SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Chapin, Stephen SAW
Subject: Enclave Pond and Use of NWP3
Isaac,
I've reviewed the application materials submitted and the email exchanges to date. Based upon my
understanding of the project, I don't think this project can qualify for a NWP#3. The main reason being that the
dam appears to have been breached to get more usable lots and for the area to `re-naturalize' not due to a
degraded dam that was damaged during a storm event. The NWP#3 authorizes dam maintenance/rehab within a
2-year window from the breach event due to storm/floods in which we would not count wetland/stream impacts
from what has formed in the bottom of the pond during that 2-year window toward permitting thresholds and
potentially mitigation.
So it appears that the only NWP that may work would be a NWP#39 but that of course has a'/2 acre of
wetland/300' stream limit. I'm assuming impacts to wetlands will exceed a half so unless impacts can be
reduced to % or less then the only other option appears to be an IP. With either of these permit scenarios,
mitigation would be required.
If there is some question as to the delineation, we should come out and take a look to verify that. Pond bottoms
are tricky so there may be some marginal areas that could thrown out that may reduce impacts. I'm going to
leave that call up to you and Steve Chapin since I'm going to be out of the office the next six weeks.
I'm here until 4pm then start my six-week hiatus but you can reach me via email.
Amanda Jones
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
office: (828)-271-7980 x.231
fax: [phone]
web: http://www.saw.usace.army.miUwetlands
1
r
tc) Johnson, Alan

From: Hinson, Isaac [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:06 AM
To: 'Chapin, Stephen SAW'; Johnson, Alan
Cc: Schrum, John E.; Nussman, Chad T, Hammock, Daryl
Subject: RE: Enclave Pond and Use of NWP3
Steve and Alan,
Per the emails below and our alternatives analysis for the Enclave Pond Project (re-flooding
an intentionally breached pond that has subsequently formed into an emergent wetland), we are
proposing to proceed with the project as planned. Sorry Steve, but this will require an IP.
As such, I would like to meet in the field to take a look at the site, discuss our rationale
for the design, determine our likely mitigation requirements/options, and make sure that we
are able to address any concerns that you guys may have. I realize that we will likely get
additional comments from EPA and possibly others, but we will have to tackle those after
submittal.
Per Amanda's email below, I would also like to have the delineated wetland boundaries
verified, although I think that most of the relic pond bed would is now wetland. Also,
Jarrod mentioned the possibility of getting some credit for wetlands previously created
within stream restoration projects that did not generate wetland bank credits. We have
approximately 0.4 acres of non-stormwater wetlands created within the Little Sugar Creek -
Hidden Valley project that are well established and we propose to use to partially mitigate
for our proposed impacts.
Steve, since you have the farthest to come, do you have a block of 2 hours where you could
meet on-site? Any time in the next 2 weeks? The site is off I-77 near the NC-SC border.
Please let me know and I will make arrangements with our PMs, Alan, and myself. Thanks.
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water
Office: 704-336-4495
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Services [e-mail]
-----Original Message-----
From: Chapin, Stephen SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:44 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac - - - - -
Subject: FW: Enclave Pond and Use of NWP3
Isaac: FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Chapin, Stephen SAW
Subject: RE: Enclave Pond and Use of NWP3
This is a nice looking emergent wetland ...I don't think a pond is necessary.
1

Johnson, Alan
From: Hinson, Isaac [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Johnson, Alan; 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Cc: 'Joey Lawler'; David Homans; Nussman, Chad T; Schrum, John E.
Subject: RE: Enclave Pond Mitigation Proposal
Hey Alan. I asked the same question about leaving the existing wetland. The pond 1) water quality, 2) downstream
flood control , and 3) the aesthetic amenity that the neighborhood wants. The wetland does not accomplish #2 or 3.
We have prepared a very specific purpose and need statement and extensive alternatives analysis to be submitted with
the IP.
We can definitely take a look at the created wetlands at your convenience.
I do want to definitively clarifv the 1:1 mitigation ratio for the wetland CREATION that we did as Dart of the Hidden
Valley project. I know that the 2005 PACG document specifies a 3:1 mitigation ratio for wetland CREATION within the
same CU. However, I'm not sure how applicable that is in this situation where we have the following circumstances:
1. An urban setting with limited wetland creation/restoration opportunities.
2. A project where we have a pre-existing pond that was breached within the last 2 years.
3. Use of mitigation wetlands that were created >5 years ago and are thus "established".
I hope to get concurrence on this issue from the USACE and DWQ prior to issuing the IP so that the process can go as
smoothly as possible after submittal. Thanks.
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Desk [phone]
Cell [phone]
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:51 PM
To: Hinson, Isaac; 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Cc: 'Joey Lawler'; David Homans; Nussman, Chad T; Schrum, John E.
Subject: RE: Enclave Pond Mitigation Proposal
1 am still have a "problem" with why this project is needed. It can't be for SW because it is thus an in stream storm
water facility. Maybe the reason has been given, but just hasn't sunk into my head yet.
IF approved, I would like to see the proposed mitigation wetlands. 1:1 is what the state requires, so that isn't an issue.
Alan
From: Hinson, Isaac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:51 AM
To: 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'; Johnson, Alan
Cc: 'Joey Lawler'; David Homans; Nussman, Chad T; Schrum, John E.
Subject: Enclave Pond Mitigation Proposal
We are working to get the IP submittal together for this project. We are currently proposing to impact 0.98 acres of existing
wetlands and 95 LF of perennial stream channel to re-flood the pre-existing pond. We would like to get your concurrence on our

T
mitigation proposal. Given that the wetlands consist of early emergent wetland vegetation within a relic pond bed, we are
proposing 1:1 mitigation for the wetland impacts. Mitigation is proposed to be accomplished by the following: 124%
1. Credit for floodplain wetlands that were constructed more than 5-years ago as part of the Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley
stream restoration project (USACE Action ID 200330198). These wetlands were built more than S years ago and were never
claimed for mitigation credit. This project is within the same 8-digit HUC and we will delineate the wetlands to determine
how much acreage is present. Given their date of construction, these wetlands should be well established and not require
an additional monitoring period.
2. We anticipate that we will need to pay an in-lieu fee to EEP for the remainder of the wetland impacts. We propose to do
this at a 1:1 ratio as well.
Does this sound good to you guys? If not, do we need to meet on-site to discuss? Please let me know if you need additional
information. Thanks.
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
ihinson(c),charlottenc.gov
Office: 704-336-4495
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2