19950796 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19950110

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
?EHNR
September 11, 1995
Union County
DEM Project # 95796
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. James Jarrett
Jamar/Secrest - Houston Development L.L.C.
10620 Park Road
Charlotte, N.C. 28210 FU
Dear Mr. Jarrett:
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.31 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of constructing a residential golf course development (Stonebridge subdivision) at Hwy. 75 Old
Waxhaw Road, Doster Road and Crow Road, as you described in your application dated 27 July 1995.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Numbers 2732 and 2671. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit
Numbers 14 and 26 when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
Measures shall be taken not to drain wetlands due to road construction. Deed restrictions shall be
places on all remaining wetlands (especially the mafic depression) to prevent future fill or drainage.
Stormwater from the golf course shall be directed so as not to directly discharge into the streams.
Final DEM approval is needed for the littoral shelves. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerel,
I
PpPrton Howard, Jr.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Len Rindner 95?
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]A?bltr
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 30, 1995
MEMO TO: John Dorney ?., '?6zlV61)
FROM: Rex Gleason` SEP a6 per
PREPARED BY: Michael L. Parkeie6NVIRp4 Nrq?Sc;?EN
??..: CES
SUBJECT: Stonebridge 401 Certification
Union County
The staff of this Office has conducted a review of the 401
WQ Certification for the subject project and the following
comments/recommendations are offered.
1. It appears that the applicant has taken significant steps to
minimize and avoid wetland impacts. Original development
plans have been modified to incorporate the wetland areas
into the project. Mitigation plans, which include existing
wetland buffer enhancement, revegetation of wetlands
imparted by golf course construction, and littoral zones on
the golf course ponds should provide positive mitigation
measures,
2. Efforts to minimize and avoid wetland impacts with regards
to the road crossings were noted: It is important that all
road cr.ossing° tr.3t pass through wetland areas do not alter
the existing wetland drainage pattern. This was brought to
the attention of the applicant during the site visit.
3, A rating was performed for Wetland No. 7 as identified on
the project map. The relatively low rating (18) should he
considered somewhat conservative. This rating also compares
favorably with field observations for Wetlands Nos. ?
although the rating for 2 & 3 would he expected to be
somewhat higher. Wetlands where no impacts are proposed were
not evaluated. It appears that wetland boundaries were also
conservatively estimated by the COE in hopes that mitigation
and avoidance would be actively pursued on those areas of
significant concern (!_:?uch as the mafic depressions). Based
on field observations, this appears to he the rase.
Page Two
4. Considering the unique ecological attributes of the mafic
depressional wetlands that exist on the site, this Office is
concerned that the 5n foot buffer set aside for the wetland
located on the northeast corner of the project will not
provide sufficient long term protection. Residential
construction is planned around this wetland, which is
expected to bring short term as well as long term negative
impacts (siltation, runoff, etc,). Furthermore, the
applicant appears to have established public right-of-way
easements from the roadway to the wetland buffer area, which
could at some point in the future be converted to drainage
easements, allowing adjacent homeowners to drain the
depressional swamp should it become a "mosquito haven"!, our
certification should address these issues, otherwise the
developer can come back a few years from now and "legally"
install devices that would channel away the waters that
"feed" the wetland.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
advise.
MLP

c
Project name _P'?i??p? /?-?e•Y`?r?.,?/ ?c? 7/ Nearest road
County ?L4.9 '/lam Wetland area d' Jr acres Wetland width 3 U feet
Name of evaluator Arny'lee Date Is,"6_ 60
•
Wetland type (select one) ? Other
?
? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh '
? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland ;
? Wet flat
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes. ;
Water stora
e
x
g 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization +°?. •
x 2.00 = •
Pollutant removal _ x 5.00 - Wetland snore •
::<:;.; •
Special ecological attributes
x 2.00 •
'Z sum
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic life value x 3.00 = •
Recreation/Education Surt
Economic value x 0.50
?_.

4 ?
'2-3
0
/, 31,40e,,5

PIA

D

U
N.C. DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
& NATURAL IZESOURCES
AUG 7 1995
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGE°AEN1
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
?ia1slr e ?nrcxriw<?vT /?l?ora9/
Zcivrs ;.? ew,Ys/ ek • -
DEM ID: -95 7 9 ? ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 14+
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL A
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO , H
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: ?c t?cicf/?e Cc ?es?C - H Oy- o n ey e\cy?rn ?-? L G
2. Owners Address: Oho 2 o Q?z,? rdoo G441AX c.O T'T 26 Z 1 o
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): -1 O`- -3 (nS -(Zl `'I (on - (Work): 1 Off' S I?I --l 0 OO
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: U?4 Ito n1 Goc-? r 'r -(
Nearest Town or City: L (I ?.t E tLAt? s P R•+ ?.t !?
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Hv f'-(
V05'17E71i ?o D.b LRov?! ft-0ofl.
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: TWeLU-= P'1 IL.4-- CAeE:U `'
7. River Basin: ptuE P197--- R4,4E17-- P-P As 1,-i
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO Irl
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [-j-
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project.site:
Ito - t7 I DrGZE? ?a`TLl?r.c os l Z 3 AC T?'-1 S tfT? ?-t? S - h? taw ocl?R-S
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled:
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: rc4i
12. Description of proposed work ttach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only):??tG L?{-}GcG{7
I d al C?v Care ? 'C?e?e ( ,
13. Purpose of proposed work: 0oael Cro" i rt
__ 14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried jut in alb ds, note measures
taken. to minimize wetland impacts. ? 11 Rod Crosc, i r ar, are irr+ r . Also
64,-\ ?--- 4v
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)'regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES &i]' NO[
]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the prese of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ NO [ J
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of
attach copy.
3,1
wner's Signature Dam
DE:M M: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 2(0
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT:
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: 7tsa_i1cgy Ker K P
2. Owners Address: 100ZO FAg-W-- tz*^P , G?-1AR-?•oTT' /VL 2IB ?-/O
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): -10-l-3 b S- (0-7 Li to (Work): -? f)L-1- S-1-7-10 o 0
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
t'I ts- • JA -16S J A A-RA%'-rt-
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: UN 10^-1 C.ouNT`-t , t4
Nearest Town or City: M l m etz4dt SP9-1-4 Csy
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): HWY 7154 oL-t) L-.tLx.? w
t%-toJ ROE kao+ra t7 DST?R C-iZo?.?! Q-OAD
6. Name of Closest Stream/River Tw`EL\M mtl--S:: cm5el'e-
7. River Basin: C-A-nNjp4F!2j2?r_Zd?Q? 22?dUnJ 1 mx:7
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO ['r
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [+-r
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: 171- Z -f Aif-•
? li • o f 6,L S W4-- rt CPS 123 ,Ae.. - r1- IPJVTZ* Z i1rS
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: - - - .2-7 bi-re
T
87 AL.-
Drained:
Flooded: A-C . Ch fer. T , h. v fa rr ?s
Excavated:
Total Impacted: l - -2 7 AGr4s
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): ECG A4+,a. c hCA
??1c?CrCt1 ? 'Ott' CevrS ? I?.[,.V? I O n ?'Y1?r?-r'
13. Purpose of proposed work:_t!2'aW C'aure, L-4-nd irNQ Areek< , T ?Ck . I n-tt rYN ok _ 14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activi must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimi wetland impacts. Q e-TltGrtls ?v? w/l? r'1ADE '(b ?+VOIt?
1M?D S t;dC.ur'I?Trr..?to? o? f?1 1^t. QNh M ITI[a/FT7Q.t _
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
G%TMFS) re garding the presence or any Federally listed or p ro posed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [l.]'? NO[
]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
15. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [y' NO [ J
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project,.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
LEONARD S I1?INDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
July 27, 1995
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Domey - Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management - NCDEHNR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: NWP "Notification" Applicatinr, fnr + 680 Acre tonebrid "
Glen) Residential (',ntf - g?(fo-?*'1y Sean c
•. Course Development near Mineral Spring, Union .ountT
Dear Sirs or Madams:
On behalf of Mr. James Jarrett of JARNAR U.S.A. L.C.C., I am pleased to provide the
following permit information concerning "Stonebridge" for your review and
consideration. The ± 680 Acre development is located east of Charlotte, approximately
midway between Waxhaw and Monroe in Union County. The potential for impacts to
Jurisdictional Waters was anticipated early in the planning process and impacts to
wetlands have been avoided and minimized to a great extent. Over 92% of the wetland
areas including unique depressional swamp areas have been avoided and/or incorporated
into project as open space. All of the proposed impacts and mitigation have been
preliminarily reviewed and discussed with the Corps of Engineers (Mr. Steve Lund) and
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (Mr. Mike Parker). As an
integral part of the development, minimization of impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and
Waters of the US will include measures to protect water quality such as; management of
construction and staging areas; protection of natural buffer areas and vegetation; strict
adherence to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan; and other Best
Management Practices. Mitigation will include providing buffers to enhance existing
wetland areas; revegetation of cleared wetland areas in golf course with herbaceous
vegetation: and by providing littoral zones on the ponds as indicated on the attached
plans and report.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation.
Thank you again for your consideration.
SiXnaarrdd indner
1-0
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
Enclosures
cc. Mr. Ed Schweitzer - LandDesign, Inc.
Mr. James Jarrett
JARNAR U.S.A. L.C.C.
10620 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
STONEBR/DGE
(Formerly Sean's Glen)
JARNAR U.S.A. L.C.C.
Charlotte, North Carolina
and
THE BLAYLOCK GROUP
Jacksonville, Florida
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
Prepared For
JARNAR U.S.A. L.C.C.
10620 Park Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
Prepared By:
LandDesign. Inc.
1701 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
[phone]
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
[phone]
"Subject to verification by the USACOE Date : 7 / 95
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
A. NWP #26 APPLICATION
B. NWP #14 APPLICATION
II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
III. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
V. AQUATIC HABITAT
VI. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
VII. WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
VIII. PLANS AND MONITORING
APPENDICES
A. ENDANGERED SPECIES STUDY AND REVIEW
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SURVEY
B. WETLAND SURVEY DOCUMENTATION
C. MISCELLANEOUS
Z
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
NWP #26 APPLICATION
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed residential golf course project site is approximately 680 Acres in
central Union County, North Carolina near Mineral Springs. This is approximately
midway between Monroe and Waxhaw. The site is crossed by NC Hwy 75, Old
Waxhaw-Monroe Road, and Doster Road. With the rapid population and
economic growth in Charlotte vicinity, residential development is moving outward
into neighboring counties and municipalities. The current project area is primarily
rural in character with mostly former agricultural and undeveloped land. A large
portion of the acreage is in open fields. The woodland areas undergoing various
stages of succession. Current land use and in the vicinity is primarily agricultural,
woodland, and low density single family residential.
The "Stonebridge" project of + 680 Acres will be a Residential Golf Course
Development consisiting of single family and an 18 Hole Championship Golf
Course, and other related land uses. Approxoximatley 250 Acres will be
dedicated as open space to meet zoning requirements. As shown on the
Nationwide Permit (NWP) #26, and NWP #14 applications, the developer seeks
approval to impact approximately 1.31 Acres of Jurisdictional Waters. The
following sections present the result of the environmental planning and regulatory
reviews of the project site and a description of the impacts and proposed
minimization and mitigation measures.
G Y Ulla U , -Spencer
16 =-? !s Shepherds Millbridge f rav ?' 3 . Dent,
321 12 Shernis Ford ? 1'4 ?6 / 1 150 '9 801 Granite
e Terrell - China i Healing Spar
Lak&J , _ 152 15 Grove 7 a 9 puarry
Maiden 150 'l 8 High Rods' ?9 6
?: Norman ooresville 6 52 Rockwell ru r- Jac V
, n I
MLMoume? - , .?? g 152 9 ? de ? kso ?
Dwww Enochville Landis Gold °"^ Hill
1?1 12 . t 1 it v `Davidsorr?--• \ - 2?+ Kannapolis 11 Hill eke l , a
?a' er Imn -n Trbngie Comeliu 13s Misenhelmer ? 8 9
g p 3 CABARRUS \\?\`
ity Station 17 L , Caldwel 73 ichfield
27 lowesvie 6 73 ; f 13 X16 ; Concord 49 12 New London 740 [at
• 73 11
; Huntersle STANLY Badin
Wind
G ASTON
i Stanley 2° 12 ?Croft? , g29 $ ` 6 Peasa ,s „3. 1. 73 -16 9 273 (_ z1 5 5 _ A. 9 f?L' • % /
Dallas 10 Lambert bemari 7
5 Ran,- efl, Hof y 14 Harrisburg 200 27 138
, - 3/ _ a so,
`' • 13 14 °Newell loot 4 24 11 Pormr `
' 22 •
• Cra -9 29 1 3 7 CHARLOTTE Midl d s 4
i m-
bNj_ 1
3 / 274 erton ?4 7f 7 • 1 24 Allen fields , 138 , AQtradala
z? jrtMEC V s ,o Mint 51 ?s 11 8 9 ral
Crowders 10 BURGS g „ Hill k 8 218 Fairviewo?? ?
12 New
557 Wy1ie ?-. 160 4 `Salem Cedarhill
r 9 49 Q 51 %, 2 Matt Unionville 24\ Ansonville 1a_
s thetas 74 10 200 205 14,1 742
55 a s n4 s?. Pineville
)ert 49 11 Lake 9 -% 521 ?009 12 O1
Te 2,8 52
csrrFR 'w""'gt°n UNION
zah ?Nr6e - 12 Bakers
?,8 5 New- 8 161 Fort 150 Marvin 84 13 39 ? 10 Polfaon, 7
?uport Mil\\ ,s Mineral ?2?MarsF P' achl 74 '
Rock-H11 ; pri
? 75 or>roe Wingate ville F1 24Z adesboro
324 322 %--1 1 52, -_ .. ngs ?c
s 7 72 ` LessFe? cock 4 Waxhavvs 7 601 ? 1003 1296
? 165 9ot13 21 Val k 5 y?alr?REw 200 21 25 109 17
1
15 1005 VVhite
lor
ii 121 17 PX N 11 207 1289 St0(e 17
? 190 22 ?3• 1.?.?..- 742
'
Lewis Edgemoor
522 Tradesv
.i - - I 1`0- Mt Croghan
r' Lando 5 ? We
' '
x ` °?\;Fageland 9 5 Ruby fid
Ro man 11 ? 223 m caster 9
9 Richburg 8 g 11 \ • 4 268 010
56 Chester 8 ? ? • 903 5 Taxahaw u601 151 ?6 g zss 4
8 102
9 Elgin
vans x 9 11 I ?? 1s g ? g 10 8 8 CHES?RF ELD
??
9 9 521 5 . SL &V
97 2 ten,. 200 Measanc -Heath A 265 9 JeffersonkS k ; 13 ?
RosslnAe 5 v,?le Hill 2 Springs 6 9 \ Angelus \ , ?? 1os J
321 '903 2` G IYan 145 1 --
7? 8 % 34
Great LANCASTER ` 7,' 12 „
BStm
lac Falls Stmeboro 13 Kershaw 157 12
drd 25 901 200 t6 151
I lAK' 192 _ 522 521 f 34' „ 13 10?? ?1 ? ?end1 '000
White
EI1yD Oak 200 ?C?pjC GENERAL LOCATION MAP
21
34 ` 10 14
34
.: ?- __4 1R 6o1 Bethune \ ..?. _\ 20 2
20
NWP #14 APPLICATION
i
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
III. THREATENED AN 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 that could occur in Union
County - Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthis schweinitzii), and the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Schweinitz's sunflower thrives in full sun
characteristic of successional fields, margins, and forested openings. 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 is 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 out of rural areas in Union County.
Based on the recommendation of the US Fish and Wildlife Service surveys were
conducted to determine the presence of these species. The surveyors were also
sensitive to the presence of other Federal, State, and local Candidate species,
and Species of Concern.
Because the site contained potential habitat of the Schweinitz's Sunflower a field
survey was conducted in conjunction with the planning efforts of this project. The
study was conducted by James Matthews Ph.D. and Edward F. Menhinick of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Habitat Assessment and Restoration
Program in May of 1995. According to their reports (See Appendix A), no
Federal, State, or Local plant species of concern were identified on the site.
State Protected S ecies
The Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis) is a fish that inhabits small streams in the
vicinity of 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
tom pollution. (E. Menhinick). Although several intermittent and permanent
tributaries and their headwaters will be crossed or temporarily disturbed by the
proposed project, it seems likely that the darter if present would continue to
inhabit these streams after development. The greatest potential impact would be
from construction related sedimentation and turbidity. Therefore strict adherence
to an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be implemented during
the construction period in order to alleviate further degradation of water quality.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
i-?
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the Survey and Restoration Branch
(SRB) of the NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) was visited in January, 1995 to review existing mapping on the
USGS Quad maps, if any. The purpose of this review was to determine if there
was of previously identified sites in the project area. Based on the review of the
maps at the OSA and at the SRB, no previously identified or surveyed sites are
currently indicated on the maps within the project area. Several areas around the
project area and in the vicinity have been surveyed and although several sites
were indicated, none were determined eligible for the listing in the National
Register. Since the project area has never been systematically surveyed to
determine tohe location of significant archaeological rtecsources and several
prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded on the vicinity of the project a
comprehensive surbvey was reccommended by the Stete Historic Preservatio
Offivice. The survey was conducteed by Tom Hargrove of Archaeology Research
Consultants, Inc. Based on their analysis and report no significant
ardchaeological or historical site were identified on the site.
Required formal contact has been made with the State Historic Preservation
Office requesting concurrence with these findings. Their response will be
forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers immediately upon receipt.
N
V. AQUATIC HABITAT
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of headwater wetlands and
intermittent tributaries of Twelvemile Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and Richardson
Creek. A variety of wildlife is supported by these systems including mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, mollusks, and crustaceans.
Fish Species
Fish species that are most likely to occur in the project area includes (but not
limited to) blue head chub, red breast sunfish, blue gill, mosquito fish, and
rosyside dace. The Carolina darter, a species of Special Concern, is not expected
to inhabit permanent portions of Twelve Mile, Beacverdam, and Richardson
Creek. Increases in siltation could result in adverse impacts on these species.
Therefore strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan
will be implemented during the construction period in order to alleviate further
degradation of water quality.
Crustaceans and Shellfish
Cambarus and Procambrus crayfish are expected to inhabit areas near
intermittent tributaries. Indigenous and Asiatic clams, and snails are likely to
inhabit the ponded areas and are not expected to substantially inhabit intermittent
tributaries.
The diversity of fish, crustaceans, and shellfish, will be limited on this site due to
the intermittent nature of the small tributaries.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Amphibians and reptiles that are likely (but not limited to) to occur near streams
include marbled and mud salamanders, spring peepers, bullfrog, mud turtle,
skink, black snake, and copperhead. Existing habitat is expected to remain in
natural areas close to the banks and in undisturbed wetland areas.
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.
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
7,
VI. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The ecological, aesthetic and recreational values of Waters of the United States,
including wetlands, are protected by Federal and State regulations. They are
considered sensitive habitats for fish and wildlife and also provide flood protection
and pollution control.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges and
authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the disposal of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States", which includes wetlands. The
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section also reviews
permitting effects based on Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are defined as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adopted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas". (33 CFR 328.3(b), 1986)
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 US Army Corps Wetland
Delineation Manual, 1987. Areas which exhibit these three characteristics is
identified as a wetland and permits are required for development activities within
these areas.
The Clean Water Act also protects surface waters through Section 404 and
Section 401. Surface waters can include, but not limited to, creeks, lakes,
streams, ponds, and intermittent tributaries.
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.
Typical observation plots were located along transects perpendicular to the
drainageway direction to observe and record potential indicators. This information
was then recorded on Data Form - 1 which indicates specific information about
the typical plot. The upper boundary was assumed to occur between the non-
wetland and wetland plots. Due to the complexity of this site numerous additional
test plots and borings were conducted when necessary to increase the accuracy
? 7i
of the delineation. The locations of these sample observation plots are roughly
located on the Approximate Map. Once the wetland / non-wetland determination
has been made the characteristics at that point were utilized to determine the
wetland boundary between transects and additional test plots through visual
observation.
The wetland boundary was marked in the field by Leonard S. Rindner,
Environmental Planning Consultant and was reviewed, field adjusted, and verified
by the USACOE (Steve Lund) on March 21, 1995. The approved wetland
boundary is marked in the field with blue and yellow flagging. This delineation
between upland and wetland should now be surveyed by a separate contractor
such as registered surveyor to determine the actual wetland extents for submittal
to the USACOE for confirmation, planning, and potential permitting purposes.
Wetland Description
The National Wetlands Inventory Map for this area has not been completed
however these wetlands and tributaries can be identified as PF01A (Palustrine
Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded) and/or PSS1A
(Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded), and
PEM1 F (Palustrine Emergent Persistent Semipermanently Flooded), PFO1 C
(Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded). These
wetland areas are in various stages of succession ranging from emergent to
mature bottomland hardwood forest. They have formed in perched water table
conditions, in flat to nearly level areas, along intermittent tributaries, and
depressions over an extremely dense clayey subsoil layer often associated with
Iredell (IrA), Cid (CmB), and inclusions within Badin (BaB) soils. Several
depressional swamp areas were identified on the site. Two are apparently
isolated while others are within wetland complexes of level and depressional
areas. These wetlands are considered valuable for water quality and habitat,
especially amphibious.
The extent of the Jurisdictional Waters were determined in the field following the
Routine On-Site Determination Method as defined according to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland delineation Manual and verified by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The extent of the Jurisdictional waters of the US on this 690 Acre site
is approximately 17.24 Acres.
Breakdown of Jurisdictional Waters on Site
Wetlands
Surface Waters
± 16.01 Acres
± 1.23 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters of the US + 17.24 Acres

[ '].'I
y -
1 ?Y?:j I ?„}(? 1 K °? 1 [1;q1114 if,ttd ? ?
1 3 >_ `"?? I ?"'.• ? sRR I ;,'??1 u???; 1.,?1 7dr 1rF? h 6
f. ii 1 Yea v? I ' -a 1 _ •? o t 1
s
<
P; I i 11633
Q3Q L'J: 1 1n w
1 P 1 ?11,,ii q'i I : .vs.. 1 W? ri w n S t. 7I
1 fl ?' 1r /.;. 91). $x, -.a T- 1 Q J ^I i I
"P? •'"a .sn. ? N ? < ?I ? r tp
aS jy ?°.F, ? r nw?o
I AL ? Y t 1
$Y=7'a >> , rt 1_& (1 N v ^ ° 3 `I : it i
?_R Z J )}F?
w O F Z nr1i1
?l i 1 •17.4_ ' .sr°. 1 Q O ` 1.
' \•?_ _ _ _ - - .fin. 1 a 00
p F ((7"?
o _ - ?1 _ .rr.. 1 a~ Ul Z V V
I 1i cl 1 _ .ra.. I wo W cr
w
+ I 1 S ---- 1 ui 1r
.rr?u. ?° 1 os 34 1 ?a ?1 ?1 ¢
141,
o A_ Y I / 1 ?
- It
° µ') \ !! ' dR Y 11 Y , 41. 'I • /('.
Jt.'.
' ??
1 / flfl .1 Y?. / , f \
I ,' \ .. a;tea / fl t_ ?fl
w" nix I \
\ ,I // i«afi? / ,`LAC / i?•''ft
' \ / `SSA r y I
II \ ,
? I
I
WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION

VII. WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
The developer has actively pursued professional planning input to develop this
project while maintaining strong sensitivity to environmental concerns. Preliminary
planning involved site analysis and consideration of environmental and regulatory
issues. Topography, natural features and systems, circulation network, site
organization, open space and development requirements, and environmental
issues were considerations in designing the overall plan. Once the final extents of
the wetland areas were determined, a very strong effort, as depicted on the land
plan, was made to adapt the schematic land plan to avoid and minimize impacts
to wetlands. During the schematic planning stage meetings were held with
representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management to review schematic planning efforts
including unavoidable impacts, and minimization and mitigation measures. The
plan and commitments made in this report reflect a positive response to the
preliminary negotiations, determinations, and concerns of the regulatory
agencies. Except for temporary construction and development impacts we believe
that the proposed project will not cause significant impacts to the ecological
functions or values of Jurisdictional Waters of the US.
Avoidan ce and Minimizatt
Through creative planning efforts, filling large tracts of wetlands to build the golf
course and development sites has been avoided. The wetlands were
incorporated into the design of the golf course, or avoided completely. Only two
small fills in wetlands are necessary at two landing areas. Where fairways cross
wetland areas woody vegetation will be removed by hand clearing or other
approved techniques to avoid "mechanized land clearing" and soil disturbance.
Vegetation in the fairway area will be replaced with low growing herbaceous
wetland vegetation. A permit is also being requested for the upper section of a
previously impacted wetland area is also beeing requested to construct lots.
Best Management Practices will also be employed to minimize impacts to
Jurisdictional Waters. This will include:
Siltation Barriers
Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect
trees
Preconstruction meetings
Other methods as appropriate
Vehicular access will be restricted to specific areas to avoid disturbance to
adjacent wetlands and natural areas. Methods to prevent short term impacts will
be inspected regularly and maintained during construction of the project.
2L"
Proposed Impacts
The development of "Stonebridge" will require an estimated 1.31 Acres of impacts
to Jurisdictional Waters of the US. These are detailed on the following plans and
schedules.
- Impacts to intermittent tributaries for impoundment's
in golf course; relocating channels; and road crossings. + 0.40 Acres
- Impacts to wetland areas in golf course, road crossings;
and lots ± 0.87 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted Utilizing,NWP#26 + 1.27 Acres
General Description of Impacts Utilizing NWP #14 (Road Crossings*)
- Disturbances to intermittent tributaries and creeks; + 0.04 Acres
total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted Utilizing NWP#14 -+0.04 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted + 9.31 Acres
* Road Crossing Plans shall be reviewed prior to construction to verify that the
design does not alter current drainage or drainage pattern of the depressional
wetland areas as indicated on the plans.
11
INr ? - ? ?} !IV(f31 /f NIU NXIIf '
?-
3 !? h t l' ! .??? ?? 1 rj ! ]I? 1n
11 1
bf)
3 o r 1fry ?i
CL Q ill 1 - Q
W 3 E, W
J W 1 ?a15']ll' ? /1
S; .Q I ! 1 N
W ,;ter, (<i 1 ;, ?' " t
L! 1, / ,?V q 1 I ?--' 0 6 }
A'Y
1
CAI
' /' ? ?• ?/ i lh f i\ ??; ?_1??'?+`? e ?? F9 \ t.,? 1 ,I II '??le ? I ?' i ?:I\?I1?`? ? /
J
W
W
ga a
cis ' . x " O
III '??' ;r' <
CL
W ti' u
o
d? ?
0
0
a
o
0
O j
.1
R?
i
Nd - -?
r?
a ? e

Y
Y
J
Y
3 1?
7
Z
7z? /
. [ s7.

? O J
0 n L5
00aW,
o
m
o
Q Q ->
p r- 0
W
C ?A 9

VI
W
W
U
Q
W
H
Q
0
Q
O
V
CL
3 py :i
\ M 8?
-10
/
/
/
q /
8

b W
p
\
b
\ \
\ \
°4?e [g
s° 4l :
\
0
y 0j?p *1' HJ \
Nb Sn/
,114
\
OJ

/(),183W8OJ 80 MON)

0 ?gb0 / (19-L1t-6 # XVl
£9l / 90t
s?

a
/SOS/d•
L---- q
`3?
':?:
/ ----
(Al83WN03 HO MON) -

6XVl
09 CBll t ? 90t
S
-
\ 01321 'W V0N388 ONV 'N 1838,38
\ (Ala3W2J03 210 M61? - -
\ 89-L1t-6 # XVl W
\ 161 / 90t o°
\ NOSINNOW 'W VIOIHIVd s
?OI1Y ? 1?VH?IW _ _ _

/

/
/ W
0 nt J
Z 2
W
/ N
aV)Lnp?
LL: r Q O
Z ?O
Q N
\ x
W
x:2 Q3
?qqY?
dE
/S
\ x '
a
J a
W
(L \^o b/
U N
vWi o 1 0
Z

W
aU
N
W
CL
C
`W
r
Q
W
In

J
O O W
F-ON?
Lf)
wrn?
N _ O
> ~ z
p Ul O J
zW
Qo -,?W
ONO
?a
oQ0 0
d€ Z
/
/ O.
?? sc sir r,ar,w•N w a?
1
I
I
I
xl
?I
?I
i
f
I

s U wrr

N
YF?

J
0
O 1w
? 0 2
/ 0
m
-
p o-,
(
, F
>-zO
z - , "
- 0 a <3:
.M 10 / ~Z
0

U('0a0
T m: ,t Q? /

N
3
t 0
/
a 1 ?
CL
Golf idor,
~ o ,
1 r T l
1
r??-i
V 1
s
1
Q 0' 4'2- u
m c r--, o oc
`? J Z
CV \ a 0 2 16,
Q 3 ..,i LU
; N
i y N
CL
LLI DO
3 i ICI 3 '38" O
V F I I 00.00 i
p ? O Y ?1 Sri J •- I ?I
CL LLI
I.
1 ? I N
Z 1 9
Q , W
01
Q o
' J
F- Z
LLI
OP 3 ?
:s ? c Q
N I
a I L
1

0
z
a
J
H
W
3
J
a
_0
N
N
W
w
a
W
0
\7"
N =
cj- N-
\Y.
^J
O
Q
J
r
O
J
Q
W
I
N
-1 l

1IIUV v uUuuZ JuQ3e fpv
i 1
1 H
Z-00
i
W I /
1 r ! 10 i
h 1 1, ,,? r
so 2'04-E
80 0
41
f ol51
It I
? I
0 _
? N
C'J Z
M
1- 4-J
J ?
+
hh 1 ? ,
i
i
V 660 ?/? ? ' i
i
l
)I
s`l
`I
1 1
O
/ (r can
i- .. llI .

O
a
CL
cn
a
o,
Z
Q ?
LLI
Z (1 ?
uj
3 ,
3
O
b.Q
N
U
CCJ

0

, ? ? 7 ? I i / ?i ? ? ? ?' ? I < is r?'tL• ??
l 1
1 « h.f.. sv-
71 1
q' y ?
I
YI
s-
,? n I `
r-e
I
I 1 •.
?; 51015 ? II ? ..,?'
4?;.. ?4 ..` •?. 5 Mfr!
fiti ? .?' ,•?1 ? r f. ... 1, ( ,
)f?
r
400' .? _
1 ?' y +?" pit ? ? ?; ?? ? ? 1 _ y•.?,.I
1 ?
r :;/s?T , ? Y ? ? •I 't (fir .1 t 1 '?? it I I
a+de? ?,
t ]?, ? ?? ' ? ? v ? .y?Y? / I. •? 11r' ?.? i?, ,? Q ?i? III
ly
nl
. ?I, U' any '?rfn. `\t I II /? I ?I
O
Q
J
O
J
V
4
W
rI
V
N
'21'
0 A.
?x \
099 \'s \ 3 1 ? ? , ? ?
H l 3? . 3
V c- Vv I I i1/? 1 W
d? o V. \
d r U W
i
?I 'sue

r
-

r 1.1

? i
r,il

.x
a
V/
J
Q
Z
_0
W
a'
CL p
_U LU
W
W y
Q W
? a
^?r

9C'?

r
Q
J
J
Q
W
I
N

0
Q
J
0
J

c
W
CL
M
Q
3
J
Q
Z
O
ti
t/J
W
CL
W
c
U
Q
v
cQ
L
W
I
V
N

1
. to
"IN
oI
1 t ! z
i. \ 1 1 3 s
z-
1 ' O
w
1 Ot =
1 \ ? 1
? ? I 1
+I
fL
?\ I
6 O ?_
Z 6 i
NJ ? ?
O99
W /
y /
? Y 1\
o•
N qj -
to
1
hN I % a
? { 1 I
1 t ? ? 1
r
r
Q
J
J

1. i

0
J
W
3
Q
0
N
W
CL
W
C
U
Q
W
I
U
N
L-P7 ,
,
i \
Ilk
1+
i

i ,
i
f \ \
O•
f \1
d ,
0
N
Q?
U o
C
il?

Ot. 9

m
0? z
i I
it J ? \
ZVI
r
\ , l
?I 6-\0
I
II ? ? i
I
+\1 ON r 11 I
+ `?f I I 1 i /? i
M
? ? ? I ? ? Z iii ? ? I Ii ? ? ? /- ? ? ?" ? ??•? ? +
I '? ? I, ? 640 ? ?? < < . ? ? ? -??' - ? ? . ????•?'
CL \
I Grp ? S ? '-? ?
co
( \
'fly. .' / •' ?

/ I? 1I ?i????r
\ 4r
ego
n J r e??
?i
tr '
?. r

c`
?j.
? t-
N

IQ
v)
0
Q
O
tx
(Y
W
F-
V)
O
0

W
Q
0
z
J
F-
W
3
I
}
Q
J
J
U
Q
W
I
?J?a]
W?
I
Cl)
0
CL Rtv Q , -J
Q W ?? 9 I Q
=
i W Z 3' iv i I j I/ Z ?_
66
QD If
I `
\ X A
r \\ ?. \ n i'' J ?/ /
U
?oo? I t a
O s? 1
i Q ?? Z ? I l
J i J 1 \ \
U i W \ ?-
i I ?? , 3 \
W
W I 'J
CY \\
CIO
ar

11
r

N
7
a) -

v ? O
C Z
\)

N W
F-

Q

r
r
Q
J
h
J
V
I^?
I
5Q
W
I
j I
• C r
it I
ct z LLI
LLI
CC3 crj
N o j co ct
CIV
zs ? ;? - ? (, o N
^± 4D
03
Rt/
Ji-i

- a
0

0

N
Q
W
Q
W
Z
Q
z
W
Z
Q
0
z
a
z
0
a
c?
Q
a
N
,?a
Compensatory Mitigation
A mitigation plan has been developed to provide for a "no net loss' of wetland
habitat, value, and function to the extent feasible on this site. The type of
mitigation shown on the plan are described below generally fall under the
category of ENHANCEMENT.
Enhancement - Increasing one or more of the functions of an existing wetland by
manipulation of vegetation and/or hydrology. Enhancement Mitigation to
compensate for the proposed impacts to Jurisdictional Waters include the
following and is depicted on the General Permitting and Mitigation Plan
Minimum 20' Development Buffer surrounding wetland areas
Minimum 50' Development Buffer around mafic and depressional
wetland areas. Easements to the area shall not be used to
install drainage to drain wetland and ponded areas.
Replanting wetland crossed by #2 and #14 Fairway with herbaceous
wetland vegetation or native wetland grass species (± 1 /3 Acre).
Providing a littoral or aquatic bench of approximately 1/2 Acres at the head
of ponds at near #10, #14, and #17 holes planted with native wetland
plants. The final aquatic bench plans and specifications will forwarded to
the COE and NCDEM for approval.
All tributaries crossed with culverts will be designed to maintain sufficient flow.
The use of best management practices will be used as appropriate to mitigate
unavoidable impacts. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish,
such as fuels, will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near
tributaries or wetlands. Also, measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh
concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.
Employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures will be specified to
avoid impacts to water quality.
Drainage from the golf course maintenance area shall be directed to a wet
detention facility or bio-filter system. This shall be reviewed with the NCDEM prior
to implementation.
?0
GENERAL NOTES: MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A) Lot areas strategically located to incorporate jurisdictional waters into the
boundaries between parcels or lots.
B) Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be mitigated as shown in the form of
enhancement. Final mitigation plans shall be submitted to the COE and NCDEM
for approval.
C) Mitigation to include re-establishing herbaceous wetland vegetation in
bottomland hardwoods cleared for the golf course; and littoral areas in the golf
course on selected ponds will be implemented .
C) Wetland clearings when necessary for utility crossings, roads, and
temporary access to be combined into the same cleared area where feasible.
D) Wetlands to be clearly marked prior to construction to prevent accidental
damage to wetlands. Contractor to be held responsible for unauthorized wetland
damage not permitted according to plans and specifications. Preconstruction
meetings shall be held if necessary with representatives of the COE and the
NCDEM.
F) Temporary construction access crossings shall be made from high ground
to high ground over channels which do have adjacent wetlands. Temporary
culverts will be provided to preserve existing natural drainage. Immediately after
completing construction, the channel will be restored to its natural vegetation.
G) Wetlands to be incorporated in the design of individual golf holes -
strategically placed as a hazard. Wetlands to be hand cleared and re-vegetated
with suitable wetland species - no filling proposed except as indicated on plans at
landing areas.
H) A (20') twenty foot minimum wetland buffer (50' at mafic depressional and
depressional swamps) provided adjacent to all proposed building areas.
1) Road Crossings will be designed to minimize impacts to drainage or
drainage pattern of depressional wetland areas.
PLANS AND MONITORING
.,v
VIII. PLANS AND MONITORING
Detailed plans for the mitigation areas will be further articulated from the
conceptual plans included in this document. These plans will be submitted to the
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management for approval. Plans will include :
Site Preparation Requirements
Vegetation Requirements
Tracking and Monitoring Requirements
A monitoring program will be developed to monitor the mitigation areas to include:
Vegetation Parameters
a. Species Composition and Abundance
b. Survival
c. Growth
Monitoring of vegetation will be conducted on an annual basis according to the
following general procedures.
A. Observation along designated transects and sample plot locations
B. Photographic documentation
C. Monitoring will take place on an annual basis in late summer to early fall
(August-September). Periodic site visits will be conducted for
maintenance, aesthetic purposes, and possible modifications to increase
survival rates.
D. Field data and Photography will be summarized in an annual report and
will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, NC Division of Environmental
Management and other interested agencies. At the end of the third year a
report will be prepared for review and to determine the need for future
monitoring or modifications.

LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
July l0, 1995
Ms. Candice Martino
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Re: + 680 Acre- Residential Golf Course Development, Union County, NC.
Dear Ms. Martino:
On behalf of my client, Mr. James A. Jarrett, of JARNAR U.S.A. L.L.C., I am submitting
Endangered Species Surveys for the Schweinitz's Sunflower and Carolina heelsplitter for
the proposed residential golf course project as recommended in your letter of February
23, 1995. The surveys were conducted by Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program -
James F. Matthews Ph.D., Chairman-Department of Biology at UNC Charlotte, and
Professor Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D., Professor of Biology at UNC Charlotte. The
reports also include important information regarding plant communities, aquatic habitat,
existing water quality, and water quality protection recommendations. It was also
sensitive to other Federal candidate and State listed species. 1 have included 2 copies of
the reports for your review and approval. In the near future we intend to apply for Section
404 Nationwide Permits and if your office concurs with the survey findings we would
respectfully request written confirmation so it can be included as part of the Nationwide
Permit application.
We look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions about
the site based on my evaluation or need additional information.
Thank you.
X. S? e
?f
eonard S. Rindne
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
cc. Mr. Edward Schweitzer - LandDesign, Inc.
Mr. James A. Jarrett - JARNAR U.S.A. L.L.C.

`SENT OF t
a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 23, 1995
Mr. Leonard S. Rinder
Environmental Planning Consultant
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27613
SUBJECT: Endangered Species Information for 680 Acre Golf
Course Development Site Near Mineral Springs, Union
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Rinder:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1995, regarding the
above-referenced project. You have requested the Service's input
to determine if additional survey information will be required to
satisfy Nationwide permit conditions concerning the Federally-
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower and the Carolina Heelsplitter,
which occurs in Union County. These comments are provided as
technical assistance pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
We have enclosed habitat information for Schweinitz's sunflower,
so that you may assess whether suitable habitat exists on your
project site. If suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower
occurs on the project site we recommend these areas be surveyed.
If any project wetland impacts or discharges are proposed near
Waxhaw Creek, we recommend that you also conduct surveys for the
Carolina Heelsplitter. The following is a list of individuals
whom the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
commission believe are qualified to conduct freshwater mussel
surveys:
1) Dr. Art Bogan [phone]
2) Dr. Eugene Keferl [phone]
3) Dr. Dave Michaelson [phone]
4) Dr. Dick Neves [phone]
5) Dr. Phil Stevenson [phone]
6) Dr. David Stansbery [phone]
7) Dr. Dave Strayer [phone]
Should you chose to conduct a survey
presence or absence of these species within
analysis and results should be forwarded
in order to determine
your project area, the
to the Federal agency

that is authorizing the proposed action, in this case, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. In accordance with Section 7 of the Act,
if threatened or endangered species are present on the project
site, that Federal agency is responsible for reviewing and
agreeing with your project effect determination on Federally-
listed species and forwarding that determination to the Service
for written concurrence.
We appreciate your efforts and cooperation with our agency in the
protection of endangered species. If you have any further
questions regarding this matter, please contact Candace Martino at
919-856-4520 ext. 30.
Sincerely,
David Horning
Endangered Species Coordinator
0
Environmental Assessment - Plant Communities and Endangered Species
Sean's Glen - Union Co.
May 1995
by
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.
with
John T. Soule, B.A. and James A. Barnwell, B.A.
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program

virginicus), Lyre-leaf sage (Salvia lyrata), Sensitive fern, Southern lady fern, Alumroot,
Bedstraw (Galium obtusum var. filifolium), Snakeroot. Along the tributary, and power line
right of way, the canopy is open. This tributary is the only one with a regular water. Most of
the herbs occur in the open right-of-way, with forest on either side of the right-of-way.
Herbs of the open area include Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum), Wild indigo (Baptisia
pendula), Phlox, Penstemon, False foxglove (Aureolaria virginica), Sundrops, False dandelion
(Krigia dandelion), Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), Blue-eyed grass, Corn salad
( Valerianella radiata). In the mesic woods to the west of the right of way, is the Overcup oak
and Sugar maple. Herbs include: Wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), Bellwort (Uvularia
sessilifolia), Meadow Rue, Dutchman's pipe (Aristolochia serpentaria), two species of
Grapefern (Botrychium virginianum and B. dissectum), Solomon's seal and Spring beauty
( Claytonia virginica).
Area E
This is an upland area with a depression wetland. The species are characteristic of the
dry, upland hardwoods. The depression is dominated by Willow oak, Sweetgum, Black gum and
Red maple. There are just a few herbs, with some ferns and Leopard's-bane (Arnica acaulis)
around the margin of the wetland. Mountain holly occurs in a good population here.
Area F
This area is mostly a dry, upland oak forest, with some patches of Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) that have been timbered. The area has been highly disturbed. Scattered throughout the
southern portion of this area, in the forest, are several wetland drainages that pass into the
tributary of Twelve Mile Creek. A power line right of way occurs in this area. Most of the
wetlands are overgrown with Blackberry (Rubus spp.) or young saplings due to the disturbance
from the timbering. The power line right of way bisects this section and has the following
herbaceous species: Meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana), Sunflower, Goldenrod (Solidago odora) ,
Wild Indigo, Penstemon, Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatorium maculatum) and Round-leaf eupatorium
(E. rotundifolium). At the southeast border of the property, along the power line right of way
is a population of Male-berry (Lyonia ligustrina). In a wetland complex along the northern, E-
W boundary of the property is a population of Supplejack vine (Berchemia scandens). Four
other species found in the upland forest not reported before are: Mecardonia (Mecardonia
acuminata), Compass-plant (Silphium compositifolium), Gentian (Gentians villosa) and
Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Area G
This is a small wetland adjacent to Crow Rd. The woody species, Cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), occurs here, along with Willow oak, Sweetgum, Green ash, Winged elm, Pignut
hickory, and Red maple. The herbaceous cover is Touch-me-not (impatiens capensis).
Comments on Endangered Species.
Since the field work was done in early spring, we cannot say for certain that all species
of concern were readily visible, but a very systematic search for the species listed below was
made.
?t
Department of Biology
UNCC
Charlotte, NC 28223
May 25, 1995
Mr. Leonard Rindner, Environmental Planning Consultant
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Mr. Rindner,
I am enclosing the report summarizing the water quality and fishes for the Sean's Glen
Development near Mineral Springs. This inventory is divided into three parts: (1) specific
studies of streams in the areas of construction and those outside of the area that would be
affected by the construction, (2) an annotated check list of fishes of the study area indicating
those collected in the survey, and (3) impact analysis including recommendations. Please
contact me if you wish to suggest changes which might make this report more suitable for
your project.
Sixty-one Carolina darters were taken from four creeks in the area and are discussed in the
report. Unionid clams were present at three locations and were abundant in a station in Twelve
Mile Creek. The Carolina heelsplitter clam has been reported as occurring only in lower sections
of Goose Creek, Waxhaw Creek, and to the Lynches River in Lancaster County, South Carolina.
The only possible station in this study where it might occur is a section of Twelve Mile Creek; it
is discussed in the report.
Yours truly,
Wl- 4,J?e7
?
Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
D?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER QUALITY
SEAN'S GLEN
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for Mr. Leonard Rindner,
Environmental Planning Consultant
by
Edward F. Menhinick
Professor of Biology
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
23 May, 1995
kJ4
STREAM STUDIES
This first part of the report describes the characteristics, water quality and organisms of streams
in the area of the proposed Sean's Glen development, and of streams downstream from the
development which could be affected by construction. The streams were sampled on May 6 and
7, 1995. Stream discharge was calculated according to Embody's formula. The Wentworth grain
size was used for inorganic sediments. Water analysis followed the EPA manual 625/6-74-003a,
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes". Turbidity was measured with a Hach
2100A turbidimeter; conductivity was measured with a YSI Model 33/S-C-T meter corrected for
temperature following Standard Methods; pH was measured with a Accumet 1003 digital pH
meter; dissolved oxygen was measured with a YSI Model 58 oxygen meter. BOD was
determined with the YSI meter with dilutions based on EPA specifications. Fishes were
collected with a Smithroot Type VII Electrofisher. Fish nomenclature and arrangement follow the
American Fishery Society Special Publication Number 20, except that Hybopsis is considered as
a genus, rather than a subgenus of Notropis. In the listing, the common name of each fish is
given, followed by the number of individuals collected given in parenthesis.
The area of the proposed development occurs on the divide between Twelve Mile Creek
which flows into the Catawba drainage, and Richardson Creek which flows into the Yadkin
drainage. To evaluate the effect of the proposed development on tributaries, Little Twelve
Mile creek was sampled at six locations and Richardson Creek was sampled at three (see
enclosed map).
Little Twelve Mile Creek Stations
Station #1 (Field # 6). A small tributary to Little Twelve Mile creek was sampled at Co.
1149, along a transmission line, 1.3 miles east of Mineral Springs. The indistinct floodplain
which was approximately 150 m wide contained a powerline on the east and a field and
residential property on the west. A loblolly pine forest beyond the power line contained an
understory of sweet gum and winged elm. A partially forested area near the road contained
sweet gum, ash, and silky dogwood and had an understory of privet and poison ivy. The
unchannelized bank was 100 cm. high, an angle of 70°, and a lower width of 150 cm. giving a
cross sectional area of approximately 1.9 m2. The bank was 90% vegetated and contained
grasses, rush, wild rose, and blackberry. 90% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical
width was 150 cm. and typical depth was 20 cm.; there was no discharge and the stream bed
consisted of 80% stagnant pools. There was a moderate blockage of sticks and leaves.
Substrate was of mud and leaves. There was no bedload. DO was only 7.2 ppm; BOD was
1.7 ppm; conductivity was 204 gmho; Secchi visibility was 25 cm.; turbidity was 12 NTU;
temperature was 19°C; pH was 7.0; and alkalinity was 48 ppm. Approximately 50 in of
stream were sampled; sampling area was about 75 m2 . The only sign of pollution was an
unusually high conductivity. The following fishes were collected, most of which were taken
1
;?j
C/3
z
0
H
cn
z
0
H
U
W
a
a
0
U
z
w
a
0
w

?r
from a 50 cm. deep pool below the road: creek chubsucker (1), green sunfish (13),
pumpkinseed (5), warmouth (4), and bluegill (15). Also taken were two Procambarus
crayfishes. In summary, this tributary to Twelve Mile Creek was a temporary stream which
consisted of a series of stagnant pools. It had low DO, low visibility, and had the highest
conductivity and temperature of any stream sampled in this study.
Station #2 (Field # 5). This same tributary was also sampled at Co. 1150, 1.2 miles east-
northeast of Mineral Springs. The indistinct floodplain was about 50 in wide and was
vegetated with white oak, sweet gum, ash, box elder and dogwood; there was an understory
of honeysuckle. The unchannelized bank was 100 cm. high, had an angle of 70°, and a lower
• width of 200 cm. giving a cross sectional area of approximately 2.4 m2. The bank was 40%
vegetated and contained floodplain trees plus ferns, mosses, grasses and honeysuckle. Only
5% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 200 cm., and typical depth was
15 cm.; there was no discharge. About 50% of the stream bed contained isolated pools. There
was a moderate blockage of bedrock and occasional logs. Bottom type was of boulders; there
was a silty film on everything, and Podostemum riverweed and mosses were common on
stones. DO was only 4.4 ppm; BOD was 2.4 ppm; conductivity was 150 µmho; Secchi
visibility was clear to the bottom, approximately 100 cm.; turbidity was only 8 NTU;
temperature was 13.5°C; pH was 6.8 (the most acidic stream observed); and alkalinity was
45 ppm. Approximately 50 in of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 100 M2.
Signs of pollution included low dissolved oxygen, a moderately high BOD, an oily film on the
surface, a heavy layer of floc, low pH, and few aquatic organisms: green sunfish (1), bluegill
(2), and Procambarus crayfishes (5). No molluscs were seen. In summary, this was a
temporary stream with poor water chemistry, low fishes, and no mollusks.
Station #3 (Field # 4). The main stream of Little Twelve Mile Creek was sampled at Co.
1147, 0.7 miles southeast of Mineral Springs. The 50 m flood plain contained ash, beech,
walnut, sweet gum, and wild rose. There was an overgrown field below the road on the west.
The unchannelized bank was 150 cm. high, had an angle of 80°, and a lower width of 300 cm.,
giving a cross sectional area of approximately 4.8 m2. The bank was 80% vegetated and
contained surrounding vegetation plus grasses, ferns, moss, honeysuckle and violets. 20% of
the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 300 cm., typical depth was 20 cm.; and
discharge was 2.4 Usec. The stream contained 80% slow-flowing pools. There was a
moderate blockage from logs, debris, and bedrock. Substrate varied from boulders to coarse
sand. Semi-consolidated silt, a favorite clam habitat, was present under the banks. There
was no bedload. DO was 8.1 ppm; BOD was 2.1 ppm; conductivity was 149 µmho; Secchi
visibility clear to the bottom, approximately 100 cm.; turbidity was 14 NTU; temperature was
14°C; pH was 7.3; and alkalinity was 50 ppm. There was no sign of pollution. Approximately
100 in of stream were sampled, sampling area was about 300 M2. Eleven species of fishes
were collected: rosyside dace (2), bluehead chub (10), highfin shiner (2), creek chubsucker
(1), redbreast sunfish (6), green sunfish (1), pumpkinseed (2), warmouth (1), bluegill (1),
2
\D%
Carolina darter (5), and tessellated darter (3). Goniobasis snails, unionid clams, and
Procambarus crayfishes were abundant. also taken were Physella snails (11) and one
adult green frog. In summary, this low discharge rocky stream probably consists of a series
of isolated pools during dryer times of the year; it had normal water chemistry and an
unusually large variety of fishes and unionid clams for a stream of its size.
Station #4 (Field # 3). The main branch of Little Twelve Mile Creek was sampled at Co.
1149, 0.6 miles east of Mineral Springs. The indistinct 50 m floodplain contained red oak, ash,
red maple, sweet gum, beech, mulberry, and had an understory of rose, privet, honeysuckle,
and mixed herbs. The unchannelized bank was 140 cm. high, had an angle of 70°, and a lower
width of 300 cm. giving a cross sectional area of approximately 4.8 m2. The bank was 90%
vegetated and contained floodplain trees plus rose, honeysuckle, grasses, Virginia creeper
and mosses. Only 10% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 300 cm.;
typical depth was 10 cm. in riffles and 30 cm. in pools; and discharge was 5.3 Usec. The
stream contained 90% pools; there was a moderate blockage of boulders and large stumps.
Substrate varied form large bounders to gravel; Podostemum and silty floc were abundant.
There was no bedload. DO was 7.6 ppm; BOD was 2.0 ppm; conductivity was 137 µmho;
Secchi visibility 43 cm.; turbidity was 21 NTU; temperature was 15°C; pH was 7.1; and
alkalinity was 46 ppm. Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was
about 300 m2 . Signs of pollution included heavy floc. Thirteen species of fishes were
collected: rosyside dace (2), bluehead chub (4), golden shiner (4), highfin shiner (18), creek
chub (1), white sucker (3), creek chubsucker (6), redbreast sunfish (3), green sunfish (1),
pumpkinseed (7), bluegill (5), Carolina darter (7), and tessellated darter (5). Also taken
were Goniobasis snails (6), Physella snails (8), Planorbella snails (1), fingernail clams
(11), unionid clams (1 shell), Procambarus crayfishes (17), and dusky salamanders (2). In
summary, this small tributary had unusually high turbidity, unusually low conductivity, and a
high fish and mollusk fauna for a stream of its size. It is probably temporary and is
represented by a series of isolated pools,during dryer times of the year.
Station #5 (Field # 2). The main branch of Little Twelve Mile Creek was next sampled
upstream of County 1162, 1.3 miles north of Mineral Springs. (The stream downstream of
the road was channelized and choked with mats of parrotweed so thick that you could stand
on them!) The 120 m floodplain contained a pasture of grasses and Saint Johns wort. A
buffer of trees along the creek consisted almost exclusively of box elder with smaller numbers
of red maple, white oak, and an understory of grasses and privet. The unchannelized bank
was 180 cm. high, had an angle of 60°, and a lower width of 300 cm. giving a cross sectional
area of approximately 6.5. The bank was 80% vegetated with plants in the buffer zone plus
Virginia creeper and honeysuckle. 20% of the stream received direct sunlight; average width
was 300 cm., typical depth was 25 cm.; discharge was 16 Usec. 95% of the stream consisted
of pools; there was a slight blockage from limbs. Bottom type was coarse sand and gravel.
DO was 8.6 ppm; BOD was 1.8 ppm; conductivity was 151 µmho; Secchi visibility was 40
cm.; turbidity was 15 NTU; temperature was 16°C; pH was 7.2; and alkalinity was 50 ppm.
3
10\
11
Approximately 100 in of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 300 M2. Other than
moderate siltation there was no sign of pollution. Thirteen fishes were collected: rosyside
dace (5), bluehead chub (7), golden shiner (1), swallowtail shiner (1), highfin shiner (24),
sandbar shiner (2), creek chubsucker (22), eastern mosquitofish (4), redbreast sunfish (4),
green sunfish (2), warmouth (1), Carolina darter (43), and tessellated darter (15). Also
taken were Physella snails (1), Planorbella snails (4), fingernail clams (20), and
Procambarus crayfishes (14). In summary, this stream contained normal water quality, and
a large number of fishes and mollusks. This is the largest number of Carolina darters I have
ever taken at any station!
Station 6 (Field # 1). Little Twelve Mile Creek was last sampled at Co. 1328 (Shannon
Road), 2.7 miles northwest of Mineral Springs. The indistinct floodplain which was
approximately 150 in wide. Vegetation upstream of the road consisted of red maple, sweet
gum, poplar, willow oak, and sycamore. The floodplain downstream of the road contained box
elder, alder, willow, and ash with an understory of privet and honeysuckle. The
unchannelized bank was 20% vegetated above the road and 40% below it. It contained
floodplain vegetation plus grasses, poison ivy and rose. It was 190 cm. high, had an angle of
80°, and a lower width of 350 cm., giving a cross sectional area of approximately 7.0 m2. Only
10% of the stream received direct sunlight above the road and 70% below the road. Typical
width was 325 cm.; typical depth was 25 cm.; and discharge was 33 Usec. The stream
contained 90% pools. There was a slight blockage of sticks. Substrate varied from bedrock to
coarse sand with silt in slower areas. Much of the bedrock was angled slate. Podostemone
waterweed, algae and Spongilla sponges were common on the rocks. There was no bedload.
DO was 8.5 ppm; BOD was 2.9 ppm; conductivity was 146 gmho; Secchi visibility was 30
cm.; turbidity was 13 NTU (unusually clear); temperature was 16°C; pH was 7.3; and
alkalinity was 50 ppm. There only sign of pollution was a cloudy color of the water which
(based on the low turbidity and poor Secchi visibility) was largely due to dissolved material
rather than suspended material. Approximately 100 in of stream were sampled; sampling
area was about 325 m2 . Fourteen species of fishes were collected: rosyside dace (5),
bluehead chub (3), golden shiner (1), highfin shiner (9), coastal shiner (5), sandbar shiner
(15), creek chub (1), white sucker (1), creek chubsucker (1), redbreast sunfish (11), green
sunfish (1), pumpkinseed (1), Carolina darter (1), and tessellated darter (18). Also taken
were Spongilla sponges (common), Goniobasis snails (8), Physella snails (5),
Planorbella snails (1), fingernail clams (1), and unionid clams (7), Asiatic clams (5: the only
station where this species was found), Cambarus crayfishes (1), and Procambarus
crayfishes (3). In summary, this lower section of Twelve Mile Creek had the highest fish
diversity of the stations sampled. It was unusually cloudy but other water quality
measurements were normal.
Richardson Creek Stations
4
/\o
Station 7 (Field # 8). The Beaverdam tributary to Richardson Creek was first sampled at Co.
1007, just north of Co 1155, 2.8 miles east-southeast of Mineral Springs. The indistinct
floodplain was approximately 100 m wide and contained an abandoned field downstream with
a residential area on the north east. There was a wheat field upstream; trees along the
stream buffer were sweet gum, willow oak, cedar, winged elm, black willow with an
understory of privet and poison ivy. The unchannelized bank was 130 cm. high, had and angle
of 70°, and a width of 250 cm. giving a cross sectional width of 3.8 m2. 50% of the bank was
vegetated and contained floodplain trees plus privet, jewelweed, grasses, and violets. 30% of
the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 200 cm. above the road and 300 cm.
below it; typical depth was 20 cm. above the road and 40 cm. below it; discharge was only 1.4
Usec. 95% of the stream consisted of pools; and there were signs of beavers below the
bridge. There was an average blockage of logs and sticks. Bottom type varied from boulders
to gravel; a thick layer of silt covered most of the bottom There was no bedload. DO was 5.7
ppm; BOD was 4.8 ppm (an unusually high value); conductivity was 141 gmho; Secchi
visibility was 40 cm.; turbidity was 17 NTU; temperature was 18.5°C; pH was 7.1; and
alkalinity was 52 ppm. Approximately 100 in of stream were sampled; sampling area was
about 250 m2 . The only sign of pollution was the large amount of silt. Eleven species of
fishes were collected: golden shiner (3), creek chub (12), creek chubsucker (24), an unusual
hybrid bullhead (Ameiurus natalis x A. platycephalus?:(1), eastern mosquitofish (2), pirate
perch (24), redbreast sunfish (1), warmouth (3), bluegill (1), largemouth bass (3), and
Carolina darter (5). Also taken were Procambarus crayfishes (14), dusky salamander (1),
frog tadpoles (4), and a northern water snake (1). In summary, this northern tributary to
Richardson Creek had low discharge, high organic floc, low dissolved oxygen, high BOD, high
temperature, normal fish diversity, and no mollusks. The darters were taken above the road
in a rocky area.
Stations 8, 9 and 10. The Beaverdam tributary to Richardson Creek consisted of a few
isolated pools at Co. 1158 (Station 8). At Co 1157 (Station 9) and at NC 200 (Station 10), it
consisted of a long deep stagnant pool, probably backed up by a beaver dam, and was too
deep to sample.
Station #11 (Field # 7).The Beaverdam tributary to Richardson Creek was last sampled at
county 2139, 5.3 miles east of Mineral Springs, 2.6 miles south of Monroe (Station 11, old
Station 7). The 70 m floodplain contained an unusually assortment of trees: white oak, ash,
river birch, willow, black locust, box elder, and red maple, and had an understory of privet and
poison ivy. The unchannelized bank was 150 cm. high, had an angle of 80°, and a lower width
of 500 cm., giving a cross sectional area of approximately 7.8 m2. The bank was 60%
vegetated and contained floodplain trees plus honeysuckle, mosses, grasses and mixed
herbs. 20% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 300 cm. in riffle areas
and 500 cm. in pools; typical depth was 10 cm. in riffles and 25 cm. in pools; discharge was 22
Usec. 30% of the stream bed contained pools; there was a high blockage of boulders. Bottom
type consisted primarily of bedrock and flat rounded boulders. Organic floc was common.
5
?1?
There was no bedload. DO was 8.6 ppm; BOD was 1.0 ppm; conductivity was 152 µmho;
Secchi visibility clear to the bottom, approximately 100 cm.; turbidity was 11 NTU;
temperature was 17°C; pH was 7.4; and alkalinity was 43 ppm. Approximately 100 m of
stream were sampled; sampling area was about 300 m2 . There was no visible pollution
although alkalinity was unusually low. Only seven species of fishes were collected: highfin
shiner (10), coastal shiner (18), pirate perch (4), redbreast sunfish (10), pumpkinseed (8),
bluegill (7), and largemouth bass (2). Also taken were a freshwater limpet (1), Cambarus
crayfishes (2), and Procambarus crayfishes (7). Water penny larvae and water boatmen
insects were abundant. In summary, this northern tributary to Richardson Creek had few
fishes and few mollusks. Dissolved oxygen was the highest of all stations examined; BOD
was the lowest. pH was the highest and alkalinity was the lowest (an unusual combination,
especially in view of the high conductivity).
Station #12 (Field # 9). Very little of the Sean's Glen development enters the main stream
of Richardson Creek, and consequently it was sampled only where there was the greatest
chance of finding unionid clams. Richardson Creek was sampled at county 2139, (the same
road on which Beaverdam Creek was last sampled), 6.3 miles east of Mineral Springs, 3.9
miles south of Monroe. The 150 m floodplain contained sweet gum, red maple, sycamore, box
elder, willow oak, and ash, and had an understory of privet and honeysuckle. The
unchannelized bank was 200 cm. high, had an angle of 80°, and a lower width of 450 cm.,
giving a cross sectional area of approximately 9.4 m2. The bank was 50% vegetated and
contained floodplain trees plus elm, privet, honeysuckle, rose, poison ivy, and grasses. 30% of
the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 300 cm.; typical depth was 20 cm.;
discharge was 11 Usec. 30% of the stream consisted of pools; there was a heavy blockage of
vines, trees and boulders. Bottom type varied from flat rounded boulders to gravel. Organic
floc was present everywhere. There was no bedload. DO was 8.2 ppm; BOD was 1.8 ppm;
conductivity was 161 µmho; Secchi visibility clear to the bottom, approximately 40 cm.;
turbidity was only 6 NTU; temperature was 16°C; pH was 7.3; and alkalinity was 48 ppm.
Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 300 M2. The main
sign of pollution was a large amount of organic silt, and only eight species of fishes were
collected: bluehead chub (2), golden shiner (1), whitemouth shiner (20), highfin shiner (10),
creek chub (8), redbreast sunfish (6), pumpkinseed (1), and tessellated darter (1). Also
taken were Physella snails (1), Planorbella snails (2), Cambarus crayfishes (5),
Procambarus crayfishes (11), dusky salamanders (2), and a bullfrog (1). In summary, this
southern tributary to Richardson Creek had few fishes and few mollusks; turbidity was
unusually low and conductivity was unusually high.
6
AV
COMMENTS ON SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE STUDY AREA
Thirty-three species of fishes have been reported over the last 30 years from streams of
Union which drain the study area, and an additional 14 species might be expected to occur
there based on proximity of nearby collections. Nineteen of these species, as indicated on the
following annotated checklist, were collected from streams in the area of the proposed Sean's
Glen construction, or from streams that might be affected by the proposed construction. In
this listing, the terms "abundant", "common", "uncommon", and "rare" have been used to
indicate relative abundance. "Abundant" means that the species has been found in at least
50% of the collections of the area, "common" refers to 20-50% of the collections, "uncommon"
to 10-20% of the collections, and "rare" to less than 10%. The terms "possibly" has been
used if the species has not been reported from the area but might be expected to occur there
based upon proximity in neighboring areas. The terms "creeks", "streams", and "rivers" have
been used to designate approximate sizes of streams. "Creeks" refer to smaller streams,
"streams" to medium sized, streams, and "rivers" to larger streams. One species of fish of
special status occurs in the area. Because of its relative rarity and limited distribution, the
Carolina darter, Etheostoma collis is listed as "Special Concern" by the state. The listing of
fish species, their relative abundance, habitat preference, and relative sensitivity to pollution
follows. The area of the proposed construction lies in two drainage basins. The western part
of the area drains into Twelve Mile Creek, at tributary to the Catawba River; parts of the
eastern section of the area drain into Richardson Creek which flows into the Yadkin River.
Most fishes vary in their distribution in these two areas. If the occurrence in a drainage is not
mentioned, the species probably does not occur in that drainage.
Anguillidae - freshwater eels
American eel. Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur). The American eel is rare in creeks, streams, and
rivers of Richardson Creek. During the day it usually is under stones and banks in pool
areas. It feeds at night and is usually caught with trot lines or traps. Its flesh is white and
excellent. The American eel is highly resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Clupeidae - herrings
Gizzard shad. Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur). The gizzard shad occurs uncommonly in
Richardson Creek and is probably uncommon in Twelve Mile Creek. It prefers slow areas of
rivers and streams, and is found in lakes. This plankton-feeder is an important forage species
when small; when mature, it is too large for a forage fish and competes with game species for
plankton. The gizzard shad is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution and is subject to mass
mortalities, usually in the winter, from unknown causes. It was not taken in this study.
7
1?
Cyprinidae - minnows and carps
Goldfish. Carassius auratus (Linnaeus). The goldfish, a native of the Orient, is commonly
introduced into North Carolina waters as fish bait and from aquaria. It is possibly rare in
streams of both drainages of the study area. The goldfish may reach lengths of 12 inches and
inhabits lakes, ponds, and sluggish streams. It is an important bait fish. It is highly resistant
to pollutants and can tolerate low organ levels.
Rosyside dace. Clinostomus funduloides Girard. The rosyside dace is abundant in
Twelvemile Creek and possibly rare in Richardson .Creek. Where abundant it may be an
important forage fish. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was taken at
4 of the 6 stations in Twelve Mile Creek but none of the Richardson Creek stations.
Satinfin shiner. Cyprinella analostana Girard. The satinfin shiner is possibly rare in Yadkin
drainage streams of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in
this study.
Greenfin shiner. Cyprinella chloristia (Jordan & Brayton). The greenfin shiner is uncommon
in Catawba drainage streams of the area; it is moderately sensitive to pollution. It was not
taken in this study.
Carp. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus. The carp is possibly rare in sluggish streams and rivers of
the both drainages of the area. This species is a native of Asia where it is highly prized as a
food fish; in this country, however, it is regarded as a rough fish and is seldom eaten. The
flesh is easily tainted by polluted water. Its habit of stirring up bottom sediments in search
for food often makes it an undesirable species. The carp is highly resistant to pollution. It
was not taken in this study.
Silvery minnow. Hybognathus regius (Agassiz). The silvery minnow is possibly rare in
sluggish sections of Twelve Mile Creek. Where abundant, this species may be an important
forage fish. It appears to be sensitive to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Highback chub. Hybopsis hypsinotus (Cope). The highback chub is possibly rare in fast
flowing streams of Richardson Creek. This bottom-feeder is intermediate in sensitivity to
pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Bluehead chub. Nocomis leptocephalus (Girard). The bluehead chub is abundant in streams
and creeks of both drainages. Its gravel nests are also used as spawning sites for other
fishes. This important forage fish is highly resistant to pollution. This species was taken
from streams of both drainages.
8

Golden shiner. Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill). The golden shiner occurs commonly in
streams and creeks of both drainages of the area. The young are important forage fish and
are one of our commoner bait minnows; the adults are often undesirable because they eat the
fry of game fishes. The golden shiner is resistant to pollution. This species was taken from
streams of both drainages.
Whitemouth shiner. Notropis alborus Hubbs & Raney. The whitemouth shiner occurs
commonly in the riffle areas of swift creeks and streams of Yadkin drainage streams of the
area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was taken from Yadkin drainage
streams.
Highfin shiner. Notropis altipinnis (Cope). The highfin shiner is abundant in creeks in both
drainages of the area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was taken from
both drainage streams.
Redlip shiner. Notropis chiliticus (Cope). The redlip shiner is uncommon in Yadkin
drainage streams and creeks of the area. It is an important forage species where abundant.
It is resistant to pollution. This species was not taken in this study.
Greenhead shiner. Notropis chlorocephalus (Cope). The greenhead shiner occurs
uncommonly in Catawba drainage streams and creeks of the area. This is an important forage
fish where abundant. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was not
taken in this study.
Dusky shiner. Notropis cummingsae Myers. The dusky shiner is possibly rare in clear
Catawba streams streams of slow to moderate velocity. It is intermediate in sensitivity to
pollution. This species very closely resembles the highfin shiner, and intergrades may be
present in the area. This species was not taken in this study.
Spottail shiner. Notropis hudsonius (Clinton). The spottail shiner is rare in streams and
rivers of both drainages of the area. This is an important forage fish for large stream species.
It is moderately resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Coastal shiner. Notropis petersoni. The coastal shiner has recently been taken from streams
of both drainages of Union county. This species was taken from both drainage streams.
Swallowtail shiner. Notropis procne (Cope). The swallowtail shiner is probably uncommon
in Catawba drainage streams of the area. This species was taken from the Twelvemile
Creek.
9
1?
Sandbar shiner. Notropis scepticus (Jordan & Gilbert). The sandbar shiner is uncommon in
the swifter portions of Catawba drainage streams of the area. It is sensitive to pollution.
This species was taken in the main branch of Twelve Mile Creek.
Creek chub. Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill). The creek chub is abundant in creeks and
streams of both drainage systems of the area. This important forage fish is resistant to
pollution. This species was taken from both drainage streams.
Catostomidae - suckers
White sucker. Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede). The white sucker is rare in the pool
areas of both drainage systems streams and creeks of the area. This coarse food fish is
resistant to pollution. This species was taken at 2 of the 6 stations of Twelve Mile Creek.
Creek chubsucker. Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill). The creek chub sucker occurs abundantly
in slower moving creeks and streams of Yadkin drainage streams, and rarely in Catawba
drainage streams of the area. It spawns in clear swift creeks with sand-gravel bottoms in
early spring. The young are important forage fishes in acid coastal waters. The flesh is bony
but firm and flavorful when taken from cold water, becoming soft and less flavorful from warm
water. The adults eat the eggs of other fishes. The creek chubsucker is resistant to
pollution. This species was taken from both drainage streams.
Smallfin redhorse. Moxostoma robustum (Cope). The smallfin redhorse is rare in Catawba
drainage streams of the area. This coarse food fish is moderately sensitive to pollution. It
was not taken in this study.
Striped jumprock. Moxostoma rupiscartes Jordan & Jenkins. The striped jump rock probably
occurs rarely in Catawba drainage streams and less commonly in creeks of the area. This
species is too small for a food fish. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not
taken in this study.
Ictaluridae - catfishes
White catfish. Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus). The white catfish is uncommon in Yadkin and
possibly rare in Catawba rivers of the area. This night-feeder is primarily taken by trot lines
and traps; the flesh is good. It is resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Black bullhead. Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque). The black bullhead occurs commonly in
rivers and streams of both drainages of the area. This species is readily caught by cane pole
fishermen using worms, cut bait, or dough balls; the flesh is very tasty when taken from
unpolluted waters. It is resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
10
?V
Yellow bullhead. Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur), The yellow bullhead is rare in Yadkin
drainage streams of the study area. Most previous Piedmont records probably refer to the
brown bullhead which has often been confused with the yellow bullhead. The flesh is fair to
poor, but this species provides sport as it readily takes cut bait and dough balls. It is
resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study; however, a strange "hybrid" between
this species and the flat bullhead was found in Richardson Creek.
Brown bullhead. Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur). The brown bullhead occurs uncommonly in
rivers and streams of both drainages of the area. This species is readily caught by cane pole
fishermen using worms, cut bait, or dough balls; the flesh is very tasty when taken from
unpolluted waters. It is resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Flat bullhead. Ameiurus plarycephalus (Girard). The flat bullhead is uncommon in slower
rivers and streams with mud and sand bottoms of both drainages of the area. Until recently it
has been lumped with the snail bullhead, and consequently its range poorly known. Its flesh
is good. It is probably moderately resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this-study.
Margined madtom. Noturus insignis (Richardson). The margined madtom is possibly rare in
streams and less numerous in creeks of both drainages of the area. It is intermediate in
sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Esocidae - pikes
Redfin pickerel. Esox americanus Gmelin. The redfin pickerel is uncommon in clear, slow
flowing creeks and streams of the Catawba drainage. This is an excellent little game fish; its
flesh is bony but sweet and of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It
was not taken in this study.
Chain pickerel. Esox niger Lesueur. The chain pickerel possibly occurs rarely in clean, quiet,
weedy creeks and streams of the Yadkin drainage. It is a popular game fish. Its flesh is bony
but sweet and of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not
taken in this study.
Aphredoderidae - pirate perches
Pirate perch. Aphredoderus sayanus (Gilliams). The pirate perch is rare in the Catawba and
abundant in Yadkin streams of the area. It prefers in pool areas of streams and creeks, but
was often collected in riffle areas in this study. Its abundance makes it an important forage
fish in the Coastal Plain. It is resistant to pollution. This species was taken from Richardson
Creek.
11

Poeciliidae - live bearers
Mosquitofish. Gambusia holbrooki Girard. The mosquitofish is abundant in still, weedy
backwater areas of streams and creeks of both drainages of the area. Where abundant this
may be an important forage fish due largely to its high reproductive potential. It is often
introduced into ponds and lakes for mosquito control. It is highly resistant to pollution. It
was taken from streams of both drainages in this study.
Centrarchidae - sunfishes
Redbreast sunfish. Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus). The redbreast sunfish is abundant in
slower moving sections of streams and creeks of both drainages of the area. This important
game fish has excellent flesh and is a good forage species for largemouth bass. It is resistant
to pollution. It was taken from streams of both drainages in this study.
Green sunfish. Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque. The green sunfish is common in sluggish
streams of both drainage streams of the area. This game fish is of little importance because
of its small size. It tends to over-populate restricted waters. It is resistant to pollution. This
species was taken from all stations of Twelve Mile Creek.
Pumpkinseed. Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus). The pumpkinseed occurs abundantly in the
pool areas of streams and creeks of both drainage systems; it particularly prefers weedy
areas. This attractive game fish is too small to be important for human consumption but it
does provide forage for largemouth bass. As with most other sunfish, overreproduction often
results in stunting. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was taken from streams of
both drainages in this study.
Warmouth. Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier). The warmouth is abundant in Catawba and common
in Yadkin streams and rivers of the area. Although its flesh is excellent, this game fish is not
a favorite sports fish. It is resistant to pollution. It was taken from streams of both
drainages in this study.
Bluegill. Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque. The bluegill is abundant in slower moving parts
of streams and rivers of both drainages of the area. This is our most important game fish
along with the largemouth bass; it is a relatively large sunfish, is a favorite of cane pole and
fly fishermen, is an excellent fighter, and has sweet and flavorful flesh. It is also an important
forage fish for largemouth bass. The bluegill is resistant to pollution. It was taken from
streams of both drainages in this study.
Redear sunfish. Lepomis microlophus (Gunther). The redear sunfish has been introduced
from Mississippi drainage streams into farm ponds of the area and may occur rarely in
streams of both drainages of the area. This is a good game fish which readily takes natural
12
r\°)
baits, but which seldom strikes flies or spinners. It is moderately resistant to pollution. It
was not taken in this study.
Largemouth bass. Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede). The largemouth bass is common in
Yadkin and uncommon in Catawba rivers and streams of the area. This is our most important
inland game fish along with the bluegill; it is an excellent game fish and the flesh is excellent.
It is moderately resistant to pollution. It was taken from Richardson Creek in this study.
White crappie. Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque. The white crappie is probably uncommon in
in slower moving rivers and streams of the Yadkin drainage streams of the area. It is an
excellent game fish with fine flesh. High reproductive rate often results in stunting due to
competition for food. The white crappie is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution and can
tolerate warm turbid waters. It was not taken in this study.
Black crappie. Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur). The black crappie is probably rare in
streams and rivers of both drainage of the area. It is an excellent game fish with fine flesh. It
is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Percidae - perches
Carolina darter. Etheostoma collis (Hubbs & Cannon). The Carolina darter is uncommon in
creeks of the both drainages of the area. This elusive little darter apparently prefers shallow
backwater areas of streams which often contain vegetation. It has been found in shallow
riffles, however. It appears to be resistant to pollution. It was taken from streams of both
drainages in this study.
Fantail darter. Etheostoma flabellare Rafinesque. The fantail darter is possibly rare in the
riffle areas of streams and creeks of Yadkin drainage streams of the area. It is moderately
sensitive to pollution. This species was not taken in this study
Tessellated darter. Etheostoma olmstedi Storer. The tessellated darter is abundant in
Catawba drainage streams and uncommon in Yadkin drainage streams of the area. It occurs
sins the riffle areas of streams and creeks. It is resistant to pollution. It was taken from
streams of both drainages in this study.
Yellow perch. Perca flavescens Girard. The yellow perch is possibly rare in in slow moving
rivers and streams of Catawba drainage streams of the area. This game fish is small but has
excellent flesh. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
13
A?
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Discharge and runoff. Discharge or flow refers to the volume of water passing a given point
per time and is here expressed in liters per second (there are 3.8 liters per gallon, and 28.3
liters per cubic foot). Homes. Construction of homes in the Sean's Glen project will
undoubtedly have a significant effect on discharge both in the tributaries in the area, and of
Twelvemile Creek and the Beaverdam tributary to Richardson Creek downstream from the
area. The extent of the discharge will depend on the amount of land which is disturbed at any
one time. After construction when grasses and other plants are well established, discharge
will decrease but will remain higher than pre-construction levels because of runoff from the
roofs of homes and roads, and increased runoff of lawns compared with that of wooded areas
or fallow fields. These changes will also result in an increase in the sediment load of the
stream because transport is related to velocity squared, and velocity is related to discharge.
Runoff should be minimized by clearing only areas immediately needed and by seeding bare
areas as soon as possible so that vegetation may be reestablished. Golf course. Because a
large area is totally cleared during the construction of golf courses, discharge could increase
dramatically during heavy storms. Once the area is vegetated, this would be greatly reduced,
but during heavy rains after the ground becomes saturated it could still be a major contributor
to flooding. I recommend that bridges on streams draining the area be checked to ascertain
that they can handle anticipated increases. Lakes constructed on the golf course will do much
to average variations in discharge. Treatment plant. I understand that the effluent from the
treatment plant will be applied to the golf course as a land application. During dryer times of
the year, the course should absorb most of the effluent. However, during wetter times of the
year when the ground is at or near saturation, this discharge will enter the runoff. What
alternatives have been investigated to handle this effluent? Will it be discharged directly into
the stream?
Siltation. Although there is considerable residential and agricultural development in the area,
the relatively steep gradient of the streams in the area causes sufficient velocity during floods to
remove moderate amounts of siltation as it is being added. Such siltation harms streams by
covering areas where food chain organisms live, by covering fish eggs, by covering habitats under
rocks, and by filling pool areas - one of the most important habitats of fishes. Homes.
Construction of homes in the Sean's Glen development will result in a large increase in the silt
load of the recipient streams. Once vegetation becomes established, however, this silt load
should greatly decrease and may reach near-preconstruction levels. Most of the fish species
present are relatively tolerant of siltation. However, many unionid clams are highly susceptible
to siltation, and Twelvemile Creek at County 1147 (Station #4) had a large number and variety of
these clams, and particular attention needs to be paid to siltation reduction practices in the
southwestern area of the project that drains into this stream. Potential siltation should be
14
V
reduced by carefully regulating construction activities, by utilizing siltation trapping devices and
other erosion control structures, and by seeding exposed areas as soon as possible. Once the
construction is.completed, disturbed areas are seeded, and a good ground cover of vegetation is
established, this additional siltation would be minimal. It would be advantageous, if possible, to
schedule much of the construction during the summer or early fall because runoff would be
minimal at this time, and this is a period of growth of protective vegetation. A buffer zone of
undisturbed vegetation between disturbed areas and streams will go a long way toward
reduction of influent silt. Golf course. Because of the large amount of land disturbed during the
construction of a golf course, major siltation could develop. It might be well to construct the lakes .
before the greenways are cleared to act as large settling basins for this siltation. Once
vegetation is established, runoff of siltation should be minimal, especially because the grass in
most golf courses is well managed, and the lakes will act as sediment traps. I recommend that a
lake be situated to capture runoff and siltation entering the tributary containing stations 3 and 4
to reduce siltation entering the area where unionid clams are abundant. Treatment plant.
Construction of outfall lines from the homes to the treatment plant, and of the plant itself should
cause short-term increases in siltation, but these should return to pre-construction levels once
the areas are stabilized. Land application should not affect siltation.
Turbidity. Turbidity refers to suspended material in the water which blocks sunlight, and thus
reduces photosynthesis. This suspended material also settles out in slower areas and adds to
the silt load which covers bottom fish food organisms and buries fish eggs. Turbidity was below
21 NTU in all streams sampled (Table 1). Homes. Turbidity will greatly increase during times
of runoff as a result of construction, but should return to near pre-construction levels once
disturbed areas are vegetated. As with siltation, most turbidity originates as a result of
vegetation removal associated with land disturbance and should be dealt with in the same
manner as siltation. Golf course. Turbidity will greatly increase while the golf course is being
constructed and until the area is well vegetated. As mentioned above, the lakes on the golf
course would act as sediment traps where suspended material can settle out. After construction,
most turbidity resulting from runoff should decrease. However, turbidity resulting from plankton
may increase. This is because a large amount of fertilizer, either from the land application or from
fertilizer directly applied to the golf course would accumulate in the ponds and result in algal
blooms which would enter the recipient stream. This will reduce turbidity but at the same time
will provide an important food source for filter feeding organisms. Treatment plant. Use of the a
well constructed treatment plant should not have a significant direct affect on turbidity. However,
as mentioned above, it could result in plankton blooms.
Conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of dissolved ions that conduct electricity, primarily
sodium chloride from wastewater treatment discharge and limestone from agricultural runoff.
Conductivity varied little between stations and ranged from 137 to 161 µmho, except that it was
15

204 µmho at station #1 (Table 1). This was a stagnant area which probably contained an
unusually high amount of acids from incomplete decomposition of leaves and other organic
material that had accumulated on the bottom. Homes and golf course. Runoff of lawn fertilizers
and lime will increase conductivity dur ing times of runoff. Such nutrient enrichment should not
adversely affect the streams, and if pollutants resulting from construction are properly disposed
of, the proposed construction should not adversely affect conductivity. Treatment plant. Waste
water effluent usually has a high conductivity due to high levels of sodium chloride. If this runoff
enters the streams during periods of low flow, or if it is released directly into the stream when
the ground water table is too high for ground application, then conductivity will be greatly
increased.
Dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.2 to 8.6 ppm for all stations except station 2
which had 4.4 ppm and station 8 which had a DO of 5.7 ppm. (Table 1). Homes and golf course.
Construction and utilization of the homes or the golf course would not normally affect dissolved
oxygen. High levels of phytoplankton in the golf course ponds could result in high levels of DO
during the day; respiration of this plankton at night could lower DO levels at that time.
Treatment plant. If sewage effluent is satisfactorily treated, there should be no decrease in DO
from land application. If wastes are discharged into the stream, reduction in DO will vary with
BOD (see "Organic pollution").
Organic pollution. Organic wastes may result in low levels of dissolved oxygen as they
decompose. Resultant low dissolved oxygen is often a serious problem below poorly constructed
wastewater treatment plants or plants that have exceeded their handling specifications. High
BOD is often associated with a disagreeable odor and inability of all but the most resistant
fishes to survive. BOD ranged from 1.0 to 2.9 ppm for all but one station. Station 8 had a BOD
of 4.8 ppm and an unusually low DO, probably dude to decomposition of the thick layer of organic
silt that covered much of the bottom. Homes and golf course. House and golf construction and
utilization should not affect BOD provided organic wastes are properly disposed of. Treatment
plant. A properly constructed and operated treatment should have an effluent BOD of less than
10. If the effluent BOD that enters the lakes is greater than the DO in the lakes (especially in
the stratified lower waters of the lakes), anaerobic conditions could develop with associated fish
kills, undesirable odors, and chemical changes. It is therefore critically important that BOD
levels be monitored continuously and kept within strict compliance specifications. If WWTP
effluent is discharged directly into the stream, special consideration should be given as to
whether to these discharges are above or below the lakes. If they are above the lakes, they
could cause a serious depletion of oxygen. If they are below the lake, they could pose serious
hazard to clams (see "Toxic wastes").
Toxic wastes. Toxic wastes are commonly present in Piedmont streams, and are often
16
??ti
associated with illegal industrial discharges. These wastes are often released sporadically at
night or on weekends when they are difficult to monitor. Unusually sensitive species such as
certain fishes or mollusks may be better indicators of these releases than occasional water
analysis. Low numbers of minnows, darters and mollusks at stations #7 and #11 indicate a
possible contamination from toxic discharges. A normal fish and mollusk fauna in stations of
Twelvemile Creek that have discharge greater than zero (stations #3, #4, #5, and #6) indicate
that this stream is relatively unpolluted. Clams are unusually susceptible to the chlorinated
organics resulting from the treatment of waste water effluent, and discharge of even well-run
plants can have serious effects on molluscs. Homes and golf course. Care should be taken to
assure that gasolines, oils and lubricants resulting from home construction are properly disposed
of and not enter the runoff. Treatment plant. It is necessary to treat effluents of WWTP before
they are released into the environment to prevent occurrence of potential pathogens.
Unfortunately, the precipitous decline of clams in recent years appears to be due largely to
chlorinated organics resulting from disinfection of remaining BOD wastes in WWTP effluent: the
resulting chlorinated organics are highly toxic to mollusks. Decholorination procedures remove
any remaining unbound chlorine, but do not affect compounds already produced. Probably the
best solution to this problem is not to use chlorine. Ozone is sometimes used. Ultraviolet is
becoming a method of choice. I recommend that UV radiation of effluents be built into the system
rather than chlorination. I also recommend that the WWTP be built on Beaverdam Creek rather
than on Twelvemile Creek in order to protect the populations of unionid clams and Carolina darter
which occur in Twelvemile Creek.
pH ranged from from 7.2 to 7.4 for all stations except for for station 2 (the station with the
lowest DO) which had a pH of 6.8. As organic wastes decompose, carbon dioxide is released
which combines with water to form dilute carbonic acid, which lowers pH. In the granitic
sections of the Piedmont of North Carolina high pH is often associated with agricultural runoff
of limestone or pH-buffered discharges. Construction of the subdivision, golf course or
treatment plant should not affect pH. Limestone applied to the lawns and the golf course will
probably increase pH, a welcome addition because divalent cations are normally beneficial to
aquatic organisms (see "Alkalinity).
Alkalinity is a measure of chemicals that will react with sulfuric acid; alkalinity tends to
correlate with pH. High alkalinity is often beneficial to aquatic organisms because of its
association with calcium and magnesium. Alkalinity was very constant for all stations,
ranging from 43 to 52 ppm CaC03 equivalent. Runoff of limestone from yards and the golf
course will probably increase alkalinity.
Eutrophication. High phosphates and nitrates may permit excessive growth of algae. High
concentrations of algae may remove oxygen during nocturnal respiration, may block sunlight and
17
l")
may reduce photosynthesis in subsurface waters, and may form unsightly mats on the surface.
Such eutrophication is critical in certain streams and reservoirs of the state which have limited
residence time. However, eutrophication is not generally a problem in smaller streams and, the
proposed construction should present no problems of eutrophication to the streams of the area.
However, runoff of fertilizers from yards and the golf course, or from land application will probably
result in algal blooms in the lakes of the golf courses. These blooms will become problems if
mats of algae accumulate in downwind sections of the lakes to form unsightly masses. Nocturnal
respiration of large amounts of algae may reduce dissolved oxygen to the point that fishes die.
Surface concentrations of algae reduce sunlight available for photosynthesis in deeper areas of
the lakes, potentially causing anaerobic conditions and fish kills. These are common problems
associated with golf courses, and I recommend that experts in golf course construction be
consulted as to the best ways to minimize these effects. Algae effluents from these ponds will
enter recipient streams, and will provide additional food for filter feeding organisms such as
insect larvae and clams, and bottom feeding organisms such as several species of fishes that eat
algae that settle. Blewett Falls Reservoir on the Yadkin River has experienced eutrophication
problems, and wastes entering Beaverdam Creek pass via Richardson Creek and-Rocky River to
eventually enter this lake.
Debris. Care should be taken to assure the proper disposal of debris resulting from clearing and
construction.
Fishery resources. Twenty-two different species of fishes were collected in the two drainage
streams. Gamefishes included redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, warmouth, bluegill, and
largemouth bass. White suckers and creek chubsuckers were also taken. Few of the species
collected were large enough for consumption, although several of the sunfishes and one of.the
largemouth bass at station 11 were edible size. Other than this stream, there is no significant
fisheries in streams of the area. Increase in plankton from the ponds may result in a significant
increase in fishes in the streams. However, the primary use of these streams as a fishery would
probably be for children fishing for small sunfishes for sport. With proper control of siltation and
turbidity, construction should have few deleterious effects on stream fisheries. However,
construction of the ponds on the golf course will result in a significant fisheries, and fishermen
will undoubtedly introduce fish into the ponds. Because of the hazard of being hit with golf balls,
fishing cannot be continually allowed in ponds along fairways. Because these ponds will be
associated with a residential development, there will be considerable pressure to allow fishing,
and a policy should be established as to whether to allow fishing 1) not at all, 2) during special
events such as neighborhood picnics, or 3) at special hours on certain days.
Endangered species: Fishes. Sixty-one specimens of the Carolina darter, a species of
"Special Concern", were collected from four of the stations of Twelvemile Creek and one of the
18

stations on Richardson Creek (Table 1). This section of Union County has the greatest
concentration of Carolina darters in the world. The 43 specimens taken from station 5 were the
most that I have ever collected, and many others were released. Many of these collections
represent new localities of the species. The Carolina darter has a spotty distribution in the
Piedmont of the state that roughly corresponds to the Carolina slate belt. It reaches its maximal
abundance in the southern Piedmont and is particularly common in Union county. It seems to
prefer Coastal Plain type habitats, as do the other members of its subgenus Hololepis, seeming
to prefer vegetated backwater areas. Station number 5 is just upstream from a weed-choked
area that resembles Coastal Plain habitats in many ways. However, I have taken it from slow
gravelly pools, shallow riffle areas, and from heavily silted streams having moderate velocity.
The Carolina darter appears to be tolerant of moderate amounts of siltation and of pollution in
general, as evidenced by its occurrence in Rocky River and Duck Creek. Well supervised
construction should present only a minor threat to this species.
Mollusks: Moderate numbers of mollusks were taken in the main stream of Twelvemile Creek,
and there were large numbers in station 3 where Twelvemile creek crosses County 1147. Large
numbers of Goniobasis snails were also taken at this location and may serve as indicators of the
presence of Unionids. It is interesting that few unionids were taken at station #4 or #5 (located
downstream from #4). Six shells were collected from station #6, the most downstream station
sampled.. This distribution does not correlate with pH, alkalinity or other water quality, and
seems to be related to satisfactory substrate. The almost complete absence of both snails and
clams in Beaverdam Creek, including Asiatic clams is unusual. None of the unionid clams were
the Carolina heelsplitter.
Veligers are larval stages of unionid clams that parasitize fishes during early stages of their life
cycle. Gills of fishes were checked for veligers in several stations of Richardson Creek. In
station 3, the station with largest numbers of unionids, veligers were found on all species of
sunfishes and on creek chubsuckers and highfin shiners; they were absent from other fishes. In
station 4, veligers were common on all species of sunfishes, on creek chubsuckers, and on some
of the highfin shiners; they were absent on all others..In station 6 they were found on redbreast
sunfish, and a few occurred on tessellated darters. Fishes from other stations were not checked.
Because of the extreme sensitivity of unionid clams to chlorinated hydrocarbons, I recommend
that ultra violet radiation be used to sterilize the waste water effluent prior to land application or
release into the streams.
I recommend that the state be notified of the large number of Unionid clams present at station 3,
so that John Alderman can investigate it for the presence of the Carolina heelsplitter. Although
this species was not collected in this study, there are large numbers of different species of
19

unionids present at this station, and it is near Waxhaw Creek that contains the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
Improvement of waters. Increase in alkalinity from runoff of limestone would be beneficial
to stream organisms. Increase in plankton as a result of addition of fertilizers and land
application chemicals may result in an increase in stream organisms, and should have no
deleterious effects.
Conclusion. In conclusion, construction of the Sean's Glen Project will probably result in a
large increase in runoff and siltation; these can be reduced by standard erosion control
measures and utilization of the proposed ponds. Once construction is completed and
vegetation is restored, these should not be a serious problems, although runoff may be higher
than preconstruction levels. With satisfactory environmental safeguards and proper
monitoring, especially in southeastern sections of the development that drain into Twelvemile
Creek, and use of ultra violet radiation in waste water treatment plants, there should be no
serious long term environmental consequences. I therefore recommend that the project be
approved.
Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
20
q1-

O N O N N N ?o 00 t? C\ M C\ in N
'•? "'"
W) "••" tr) N M ?+ N M \O et N
F
o?
N '[ M
C? N N O O 00 ?O - 00
o,
41
t? N O oo O oo tl- N
NR
00 > en C14 en cn W)
eq C14
d 00
N
COM M C, v, to .. .. 00
N ^ ~ •--?
C
kn r- en
6J
C
v C?
m 00 en \40 r- tn en
O ^14
N
a qT
?O N t/1 M '-+
w
CO
3
b
y try •? ~i ?' N N
C
I
CO ?
V
cy,
O F v
Cf) tr) W) W)
6a N
CO
F ?
w
u. y y y, tu U N ' O C
E c?c?? ? s C C _C N 7 'C Q' O y 'Oyy 'O 'C
C 'O V ..C a L .C S? U 'O ? O U ? C y ,.y ? ? ?
h y y a
8
b c E v v a a
o
c
a ? d y o vii
b
xa??3xU?U 3v x w a xc7d'.3aa OF
y
? L`$ y
? y V ? C C y
? 4> ? y L ? Zf
O ? L .Q C
? -C O V ? y p O O
N y 4, ? •? .y. y y0 ? Oy .,0 O ,? ^CI L ? .L y •~ y G
A y ?. v o O ? O V ? ;? ? O 6a y CJ .? L .b .fl ? ? `? y V i ? T!
v z ^ 7 Q ,4 Cl '4 „^. N 'O L 'C '1 ZJ U y p y .o. O y N
4% •p Cd 'fl ??. O O y ? Ol U O y C ? •? „?,. -Q rb L Fr ?` CS O V?
c °_? o 'C o 0 0°°" y o C° :? o .? n o0 00 :d .C o
Gz, v? fx U ?% U W ;; ¢ c V a Q a W o
U U .?, P. Q U a E,
.. N N N ? kn 00 00 %n
O

O\

O? N •--' N v'f N •-- r- N 00 C`• tc .• M 0,0 1.0
>, 00
v
r
G
U.
a
I? c
d
N N C•
r. N
W C d oo
.? ? 'T N

V ?
00 .. - ?t •? t? l? 00 O t? •, •, N v1 tt
0
0 .-i
o
O N
_
•--? E E 00 V') •-- •-- l? to •--• M tD to O? O M ?O M Cl %0 M
N U 00 CV M
-+ V

N N
?O

N E
d
O It
00
O W)
N
O
?O
t0
@J N 00 kn r-? vt ..

N D\
.
E
M . + "O 00 N t0 t0 O M I? .r ?O W) M
N T l? N d' N cn ? -,:r - to
?
N ?

ch E ". b
.? . a C r -. C'. C\ M O It
Ud 7 r. .O T 00 N 8 ?' (? N

CO
N ca

'C O
H
d' h• 00 O 00 to to O
Ua o N
N t
.D

H 't
.r t0 ? N t0 N ? N N O 00 OA O
e N d
N c
N
b0
y
4'

E a y v aJ
c i n o '?` O
o i v N b w 0 c U
14 c4
T ` O U
E iq T
cis m .Y 0q N =
' :j
'd E
a
U w` w v En C/ w U ¢ U
U
Q
w
c7
?
3
a°
a
?
z
?
a
a
s

y

h
L'
?
? O
o> O L
y
o C c a? O tl OO C O h L y ,? .T. y
U Z ?' y -O v C •M`^ U Ci to Q' U O U C ?Q
y 00 .x .? O N C , .O CS
t:3
F3 Zt V C

' c0
c o ° o ? a 'E o > ° a v o o Cd
oo
O
o
°
"
se
?? fr: v? (x o y
c., c V .
0. 0. U , V 0. 4 A C? W v F U c
i
Q Q A
ea ? E-?

g`?
LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
July 10, 1995
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: + 680 Acre Residential Golf Course Development Site in Union County near
Mineral Springs - ER 95-8274
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley: -
On behalf of my client, Mr. James A. Jarrett, of JARNAR U.S.A. L.L.C., I am submitting
an archaeological survey for the proposed Sean's Glen project as recommended in your
letter of February 22, 1995. In the near future we intend to apply for permits such as
Section 404 Nationwide Permits. I have included 2 copies of the report for your review
and approval. If your office concurs with the findings we would respectfully request
written confirmation so it can be included as part ofh the Nationwide Permit application.
I look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Thank you.
S e2 --o"""Waft
Zv
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
cc. Mr. Edward Schweitzer - LandDesign, Inc.
Mr. James A. Jarrett - JARNAR U.S.A. L.L.C.
Q\
A-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 22, 1995
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
71 13 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
Re: 680-acre residential golf course development site,
Mineral Springs vicinity, Union County,
ER 95-8274
Dear Mr. Rindner:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1995, concerning the above project.
We have researched the structure identified on the map as UN 84. It is the
(former) Corinth School which has been substantially altered into a private
residence. The structure is not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places due to the loss of historic and architectural integrity as a result of
the renovation. We understand the building still exists at this location, but the
building and 3.5 acres of land are not included in the acreage which will be
developed. This would account for the structure not being seen during a walkover
of the site.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources. Several prehistoric
archaeological sites have been recorded in the general vicinity of the project. The
presence of these sites (31 UN113-115) suggests other unrecorded sites may be
discovered in similar topographic areas.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Steeply sloped areas (over ten percent) may be excluded from survey.
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archaeologists, or contact the society's
current secretary/treasurer, David L. Carlson, Department of Anthropology, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, telephone [phone].
CVJ 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be
contacted to conduct the recommended investigation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
erely,
r
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
al
LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
June 19, 1995
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: Wetland Delineation Submittal - Sean's Glen (Mineral Springs Sitej
Dear Steve:
On behalf of Jamar U.S.A. L.L.C., developers of Sean's Glen, I am submitting the survey
of the wetlands and supportive documentation on the project site for your review and
approval. We are currently utilizing this map in our planning efforts and in the future we
plan to discuss wetlands planning, minimization and permitting issues with you. I would
appreciate if you forwarded a signed copy to GPA as well.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Thank you.
i rely,
eonard S. Lindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
cc. Mr. James A. Jarrett
10620 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Mr. Ed Schweitzer
LandDesign, Inc.
1701 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
GPA
P.O. Box 36916
Charlotte, NC 28236-6916
G'V
1 _ " ., 1 t sS ?qY I 5'la "xo.i [1??Y 1)E?ll? °
r.;s7,. !? i I I? is A N
{es 'a ?~, r -°g nqn ?:?;, !'i [! lir1?[I Z
A ? `' t' { lid' I y ( O
'?F;s 1'I??n'?p ' c lo- r i? ? ?N?N?r ? 41 ? ? 11 r ??•g Si???jt `'liil?t ,n
F-
\ o{c? ?l f I ?t --- -? a U jr.
. N 1 /gtrr •?:,? g@p- I 11 IIG7! 411. 11 w n In n O
ell.
1 N
- r(b -.L 1tF a yd r)w o II O
I d ag r T;, N y a:.. ?i R (1 rn? r' O J
I $9 i y7;4 A? ab a ; 1 ?M Y.a n o° if
a
P.r" CL
gS'g / 7 p5tF-
W =J? Z
:as;: I ¢ 0¢ p Q
I ' I{Q? -I" ?.w.. 1 ar-vlz
I !IF'-"? rr 1 -,nn.r '1 I W 3-pi
¦y?Ai ?4 1 Via. 1i ^]_ - J Vl
:rti?+ "? 1 `g ! I h!
N°CJMI I RIS ? F ? 1' N^_3 '!' I! // a = ~
`?? ?1 I! _,+\ •? \ - rl?`?`'a. ? ?.1.(e ? II V I! - // \ G
? :¢?,;? ?? ? .,?\ ula,?g ?`,?? I! ! ;?•'cQ Irl ?+Y?.+S ! h {! ? ?{ ucoja /. li ???`?
k" I
\? \ "'h?`? r'O?/- - Nos:lrlon ° iaa 1. ?! a
? ;? / a rl ? I
\\ ?? /? 1 - : 5 e %34
M1 ?. ii ?? 1 ' 1 .i / My, / Iii wx°,I nrwl ? •aa I
?- " - r?'''t ? II ??° ? \\??/// PM ?vmMn Priv?`HIIYJMY_II ..111 7? I
/ ?fI / ;nl? \\ ?...^ - ! ?W If it
\ - as s / rl t c? /II
I / A w°>S 3 .g
III `r.N IIIMI I, j ,
I ??M`Y ? ;?..g¢ I
II \ /
\ I
G?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ?._CIn L4!'r t,?'?in?ra / ?nr? 5 ?17e? Date:
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: Lei-, State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? C:!e No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (157 Transept ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes c 1 Plot ID: _
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
^ s. S'07 5
ll
2. ,?!/ l tl r?M /
to. ?/. /J'1 bS/C ??cd 'C
CIr C
3.:1-4 a. -14aC?I f/ ?_ /4C f 11.
/C/)/CA- 12.
13.
6. r rr G.7 "/) l ril Yti _ 14.
JVhC,,CIZ 15.
a. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
-er.(.. tiG?j CSI C: iw%1 ?"?-
/?L`/?1?[J(- `:•%!
??-?
.. V??
, ?
?
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs L-Inundated
_ Other ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available i.Water Marks
Drift Lines
-

Field Observations: 7
Sediment Deposits
ainage Patterns in Wetlands

Depth of Surface Water: 1-12- "t (In.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Z Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: fn.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
k
)
l
i
i
R
E
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) s
xp
a
n
n
emar
_ Other (
I / ?I
Remarks:
/i'/v? fiLr _` • 1 C.??`., ?/ , _t ?G rl , /fin

WTI, 1995
-196-
G?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:un ; Date:
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: A-e, ?r?-dyc?l State: /VL
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? C NQ-_ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
&
? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
/
o Plot ID: Z
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
Domi ant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
V 9. S /3^ ?•? u
,
-r- rAc-
10.. yV n
V
5?c_
3•
-7
'W/1 07t- 7-A 12.
13.
6.1 iry , ( 14. .

16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). a
Remarks:

_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary
Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs 1 /
Inundated i ^
_ Other ??4aturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _?Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
., Secondary, Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) vCxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_
Water-Stained Leaves I r of /{ C ! T f-
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Sail Survey Data
FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: t? (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WTI, 1995
.196-
C?(P
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ?CL,-4 2 95
Date:
Applicant/Owner: _
County: (_)A/c+n
Investigator: /-en State: /V L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yj?) No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 1CG Plot ID: Z?-
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. vl?vS 5e? rn? / ?f}UV ta. G%s? IQOdY?,?? /? ?LC .i
3.rcfi ?1?J / G` 11.
12.

6. 0 7rA?-, 14.

16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
l 60of
o
(exc
uding FAC-). :
Remarks: V, r

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available ,,Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Reid Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -'' Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

-? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) _ Local Sail Survey Data
? ?FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
I- ,
WTI, 1995 -196-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:, (y lP?,-? Date: ??-A5
Applicant/Owner: County: up,cn
Investigator: State: Atl-I
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y-e No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (No
Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
A?Atllco
2. v r'vr-? ? ?L? t o.?±?-? ?r_C?Cc, ;(? r,GY? ?C?- _?
3. ?ni ;s C 0 !/I
,t
4.
H
C?? i 1 LGt ?n C?0
-
?_?`1
12.
/
?
5.( Or/ v
0/n(?I11CVy 13.
14.

a.?%'? ?t> 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC i
(excl
di
d l0
FAC
u
ng
-). -
Remarks.
(e S??- ??
Vr r ? r

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
- Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: /
?nundated I'?-f?j Gam`,
?Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
j,-Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: 1,,:L:Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r? Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: -rte, (n.) L-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
!VNater-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: -!" (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
T

Depth to Saturated Soil: -1 Z r (in.) _
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WTI, 1995 .196-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: Date: ?J
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: County: IL
State: ?,,
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? "es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Cq6:? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Cl`101 Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.) T-'
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

3. L
4. ;lytr S?/?\/G?!Cw G 12. ro ,-,Ii
5.? ?4, Snh?t/? C_ 13.
O
!? Gl?IGCLn C x1?
6. fir . vr?c?0 5 ` /
-
14.
Z-V /G?jrQ ?A/Y?Yt ?Cv?L ?lG _
_
7.
16.1'

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(
l
di
c
exc
u
ng FAC-).
Remarks: Q?? f avGi-Gy p

J
?-
tv- t')' d
??f ?S /cam Q
uCGG

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_--Inundated
/"Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-i.::- Marks
L.? Drift Lines

Field Observations: _/"Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
/
Depth of Surface Water: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
k
--
fin.) -
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-
, Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: ! fin.) _ Local Sail Survey Data
. ,
Depth to Saturated Soil: - ?, (in,) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ?% CYC :? aJ ?I / `% ( 7 J S -?! h r LCG !
J

WTI, 1995
-196-
I- 9v

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
o`
Project/Site: _`peo i Da ??a
Applicant/Owner: F
ty?„
Investigator: /CJ
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y s" N o Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ?
Yes N Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yeses Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator

2. 10. 11,
f m'''ar ( '? Y Li L

4. ` i /LL v? d r !S C- Pk/ 12.
13.
Al' 14.
7.

Percent of Dominant Species that ar
l e OBL, FACW or FAC
(exc
uding FAC-).
Remarks: /

HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs ? Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available v' Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
i
-f- _ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

I _

%W1, 1995
-196-
r?• ,?? A
1 e
1 .k17
?1 t_.S I ?R I } .'N?c_ i??? +' ?, 17 • h
1 ? ?.5 {.? d {? .Jy. 1t'1' la l
ySi.-S 1 d7 .p ,' t i5???y `? II {' 4 EII ?31 r. ????(E f+?iir i
?e re
g .s 1? N?c c rr
Jn't? towns dJ,till III
1 ,.
- - - -- -?=< _ -. .. -- .? I Y•{„I - as., 11 rn Q
?v? iy? I 1 ar... ?+
1 ,I 1' 1?Sr ?. Ysq ll?. .ee•.. 1 w V N S
I Il??,'I\'?, /, 9t1. .f? # 1 a 11 a n ,r a ?, ;<_ J
• Ir -"'++I. (; +7.? J ? $e3 ?";j" .,:10.. y N N Q i) n /
HER I Y=Sfy^ ' y7'S ?? 7 1 Y?iE F}
LFLILii
1 TM I? I_._ - AR. I JO00
7 a
n?ur+nc ^?^ I ?s',g I? II deb ?1 ?1 /
_ a e
1 •'?+ ?;?w,mn ? id";? ?."' 111 ^ ?g = ! '•} t` ;??/
y}\ (% ?1 _ f\ ` ', ;- Ir' '`'''t. 'rc I ?? p1?/ ?? /? \\? 4gdc
` It
• li Asa: /. '`?\`g
W MW
441
ad alA t ?i t"? It. _n
\t6?\ L Y F I??"t ? _q ,
Til s• p 11 I,,.ip-a 1 S'( ri L ?2` ?Y7 S/ I / r. ?\ , 11 ' +
A 35 -4 k t ` i
"P q
5.• i 1 ? "_?' u i ? t J I
I / ?\ . g ? n ? 1 / t , w ; ?? `? ?!/' , / - / Mlxannt xo •on+ „ _ [y
? rt 11 4 ?C. ?< "'iy'rc e'er / tirs+w,n Dena ,?' (? ?° ? ?
-_? PEN (i. //y'?/// Ie w.mne r4 wwl It `r ??d? i
,, ?.,?,.? ?;:?M1 i , • ,x.,.;t I \?? nn, n?.„"x+n/nn,,rt 11, ?w??
n _ ; ? c. ? ? - n,xalax
?`-' • , '? ? xF ? ? wewnn n "owre ?.... 1, ? 11
I / \I _c aR?b // 11 t_: •.a 111
1 /
unne alxl 1// \ d. / /
`idGldR? ,HCP FALLS LAKE
TEL :[phone] Aug 26 ' 95 15:06 No. 001 P.04
0 Nord Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K -
512 N. Salisbury street, Raleo, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fuihwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning, DE D HN j
10.
FROM: Owen F. Anderson, Fiedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 26, 1995
SUBJECT : 401 Certification for Jamar/Sccrest-Houston Development L.L.C. to fill wetlands
for the Stonebrldgc Project now Mineral Springs, Union County, North Carolina.
DEM 1D # 95796.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
subject document. Our continents are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the the
and at. 401, as Act of 1977 16 (33 U..C. 466 et
U. CS661-66) amend Nand orth Carolina General Statute ss (G.S. 1 3-1318
St
et seq.).
The applicant plans to construct a residential golf course on it 680-acre site on a
watershed that drains to both Twelve Mile Creels that flows to the Catawba River, and
Richardson Creek that flows to the Yadkin River. The developer socks approval to fill or flood
approximately 1.3 acres of wetlands under N WP#26 and N WP#14. The project site contains
approximately 1724 acres of wetlands. The Carolina darter (]stoma mEW, a state listed
speciakoneern fish species, inhabits small streams in the vicinity of the project area.
The document contains details on extensive stream surveys for fish species conducted by
Ed Menheniek, UNCC, in May 1995. A total of 61 Carolina darters were collected from 4
stations of Twelve Mile Creek and 1 station on Richardson Creek. The report states that "This
section of Union County has the greatest concentration of Carolina darters in the world." We are
concerned about the increased stream sediment from construction activities and cumulative
impacts of pollutants from residential development and the golf course. These pollutants may
adversely impact the Carolina darter and other aquatic species of Twelve Mile Creek and
Richardson Creek.
,NCEJRr,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Aug 26'95 15:07 No.001 P.05
401 permit No. 95796 2 August 26, 1995
A mitigation plan is presented. The applicant used avoidance and minimization with
wetlands being ineo rated into the design of the golf course or avoided. Best management
practices will be used to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters. Wetland enhancement
included establixWng a minimum wetland buffet', replanting a wetland area, and providing
aquatic benches at the head of ponds.
We, request that the following modifications and/or conditions be incorporated into the
permit to protect the wetlands and aquatic habitats:
1. A total of 3.9 acres of
destruction of 1.33 acres of wetlandwedand a= shOuld be created On'site to s. Created wetlands should be located Aacent to
existing wetlands or streams.
2. protect all remaining wetlands on the site from additional development. Deed restrictions
should be placed on individual lot owners and open spaces to prohibit wetland
destruction.
3. Width of vegetated buffers along wetland areas should be increased to a minimum of 35
feet; however, wider buffers (50-100 feet) should be used where feasible. Efforts should
be mad to retain and to establish trees within these buffers.
4. Where feasible, maintain or establish a minimum 100-foot forested buffer along each side
of perennial streams and a minimum 35-foot (a wider buffer may be needed in steep
terrain) forested buffer along each side of intermittent streams.
5. Implement and maintain a strict, state approved sedimentation control plan during
construction to prevent silt from entering streams and other wetland areas. Monitor
streams immediately downstream of construction activities alter heavy rainfall for
turbidity and install additional erosion control structures as needed.
'Dank you for the opportunity to provide in ut into the review process. If I can be of
ftulber assistance, please contact me at {S19) 528-9$86.
CJ r`+ LANDDESIGN, INC. V[EUTEUU (OF TU{I RS UVUOU UU
1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203
P.O. Box 11938, Charlotte, NC 28220-1938
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]
TO Water Quality Planning
nivisinn of Encironmental Managment
NC DEH&NR
WE ARE SENDING YOU KX Attached O Under separate cover via Federal Express the following items:
O Shop drawings ? Prints ? Plans ? Samples ? Specifications
C] Copy of letter ? Change order O
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
7 Nationwide Permit Request

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? For approval ? Approved as submitted
V For your use ? Approved as noted
? As requested ? Returned for corrections
? For review and comment ?
? FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY TO
? Resubmit copies for approval
? Submit copies for distribution
? Return corrected prints
SIGNED:
Ed Schweitzer
S'

V A
V
n? v 0
roM ?

0 o
0

I °°
? ?s
01

CY)
171

630

°
nA 660
7
z o C/ _
y?2c/ `d0a W?Vd G-10 O
O

z
1 1,1
0 j
/ 1

\rn

D
*
y ?c001 as o

W 9 -?
o
I

1
i . YET

1 1