20000885 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000605

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
' N15VA
T 0
D E N R
November 6, 2000
DWQ# 00-0885
Ashe County
Mr. Russell Weil
P.O. Box 11697
500 Hermitage Court
Charlotte, NC, 28220
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Weil:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill in 210 linear feet of Three
Top Creek in order to construct a dam at Headwaters of NC in Ashe County. This application was described in
correspondence received by the Division of Water Quality on. June 5, 2000, and in follow-up material received
September 12, 2000 . After reviewing your application, we have determined that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3287. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39
When it is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404
permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
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 a new certification. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby
responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed
one acre, compensatory wetland mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and the conditions below:
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and
waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days
of the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification
format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands ;
2. The dam shall be designed to facilitate mid-column release of water to protect downstream temperature and
dissolved oxygen standards.
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. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask
for a hearing.
Non-Discharge Branch • 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/] 0% post consumer paper
iF
der Section 401 of
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality 46 the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorny at
Sincerely,
4
0 (.tev ns
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
Russell Weil, 1513 Ideal Way, Charlotte. NC, 28203
000885
Headwaters of NC, LLC, Ashe Co. 00 0885
Subject: Headwaters of NC, LLC, Ashe Co. 00 0885
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:27:33 -0400
From: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Todd St John <Todd. St.John @ ncmail.net>, Larry Coble <Larry. Coble@ ncmail.net>,
"cyndi.karoly" <[e-mail]>
John,
Hope you are doing well and taking care of yourself -
I wanted to talk to you about this project and their mitigation requirements - I mentioned this to Todd a
few days ago, so that's why I copied him.
They only have 210 LF to mitigate and had originally proposed stream preservation of roughly 7000 LF -
and you stated that this was not possible under the May 2000 mitigation policy. The way that I am reading
the policy is that preservation should be 1) <10% of the project ..... or 2) identify as in need of preservation.
It say that it should be not must be. Now, normally I would not pick apart semantics, but I have been to the
site and they do not have anything on-site to mitigate with restoration (the streams are very nice, stable
channels) and I am not sure if they are going to find an agreeable farmer downstream. They have
employed Mickey Henson to look for a restoration site, though. Believe it or not, they do NOT want to
pay into WRP. They want their $ to stay in the area.
Also, to compound this situation is the fact that the 210 feet of impact is from dam fill, which I am now
understanding does not requiring mitigation.
So, when you get a chance, call or e-mail,
Thanks,
Jennifer.
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 10/27/00 11:20 AM

Stat of North Carolina`
Dwa ent of Environment
and Nat al Resources
Division of ater Quality
James B. Hunt, r., Governor
Bill Holman, Secre ry
Kerr T. Stevens, Dire r

6
0
Headwaters of NC, LLC
Charlotte, NC, 2429- - -2-2-10
KIP
D E N R
®??27
,Septetvher•18, 2000
DWQ# 00-0885
Ashe County
-1
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
4
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill in 210 linear feet of Three
Top Creek in order to construct a dam at Headwaters of NC in Ashe County. This application was described in
! correspondence received by the Division of Water Quality on June 5, 2000, and in follow-up material received
c September 12, 2000 . After reviewing your application, we have determined that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3287. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39
when it is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404
permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
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 a new certification. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby
responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed
one acre, compensatory wetland mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certifixation d the c di ions elo7:
1. We derstand th ou have chosen t re rve 7000 linear feet streams onsite n order to compensate for
e 'mpacts to s ems. This contr' on ill satisfy our c p satory mitigation irements under 15A
N AC 2H.0 S 6( ). Consgrill aseme is through' lan ust shall be placed o se str eams. shall
supplie wit copies otectio mechanis and report of the of ted areao? fina written
s, this
pprov prior o stream ssoci ted wit onstructi n of the Fo acco ing pur se
ification a tho ' es 210 eet streams, in he ver an -basin and 7000 feet of
stream preserva ion is re2. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and
waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days
of the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification
format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Non-Discharge Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
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. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask
for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
Russell Weil, 1513 Ideal Way, Charlotte, NC, 28203
000885
Re: Headwaters of NC, LLC, Ashe Co. 00 0885
r-' Subject: Re: Headwaters of NC, LLC, Ashe Co. 00 0885
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:16:00 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
CC: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
will do.
rob - please pull. this file. print out this email and add to file.thankx
Jennifer Frye wrote:
I can - but it is my understanding that the only thing holding up their 401 is mitigation, per a letter from
your office - so perhaps it would be better if the info. came from CO.
John Dorney wrote:
preservation would not work in this case because it does not follow the policy. preservation is to the
exception - this would set bad precedent. you are right about the dam(n) thing however. do you want
to tell them that mitigation not needed?
Jennifer Frye wrote:
John,
Hope you are doing well and taking care of yourself -
I wanted to talk to you about this project and their mitigation requirements - I mentioned this to
Todd a few days ago, so that's why I copied him.
They only have 210 LF to mitigate and had originally proposed stream preservation of roughly 7000
LF - and you stated that this was not possible under the May 2000 mitigation policy. The way that I
am reading the policy is that preservation should be 1) <10% of the project..... or 2) identify as in
need of preservation. It say that it should be not must be. Now, normally I would not pick apart
semantics, but I have been to the site and they do not have anything on-site to mitigate with
restoration (the streams are very nice, stable channels) and I am not sure if they are going to find an
agreeable farmer downstream. They have employed Mickey Henson to look for a restoration site,
though. Believe it or not, they do NOT want to pay into WRP. They want their $ to stay in the area.
Also, to compound this situation is the fact that the 210 feet of impact is from dam fill, which I am
now understanding does not requiring mitigation.
So, when you get a chance, call or e-mail,
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
1 of 2 10/27/00 12:07 PM
Re: Headwaters of NC, LLC, Ashe Co. 00 0885
r
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 10/27/00 12:07 PM
PINTAIL PARTNERS
October 24, 2900
Mr. John R. Domey
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 47669-1621
Dear John:
I am writing in response to your letter concerning DWQ project #000885. It was our desire to try and do
all mitigation on site-if-possible, bunt does not appear that we will be able to make that work. Jennifer
Frye visited the site this past Friday and we all concluded that we needed to begin to look off site to
mitigate.
Mickey Henson and I have begun looking for places that we can mitigate for the 210 linear feet of fill. As
soon as we locate a suitable situation, we will submit a new proposal. Please call me if you have any
questions, otherwise we will heintouch-soon.
-gional Office
POST OFFICE BOX 11697
CHARLOTTE, NC 28220 704-651-5424
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 ? •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 5, 2000
DWQ Project # 000885
Ashe County
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Headwaters of NC, LLC
500 Hermitage Court
Charlotte, NC 28207
Dear Sirs:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill material into 210
linear feet of streams located at three Top Creek for dam construction in Ashe County for a residential
development as described in your application dated June 5" and September 12, 2000. Insufficient evidence
is present in our files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as
described below, we will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC
2H .0507(e) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information,
we are requesting (by copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers place your project on
administrative hold.
Please provide us with information. This project will require compensatory mitigation as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Your mitigation proposal is insufficient because your have proposed only to
preserve streams which does not replace the lost stream uses and is thereby not approvable.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to
me and to the Ms. Jennifer Frye, Winston-Salem Regional Office at [phone]. If we do not hear from
you in three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn. I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
TDr
R. Dorney
cc: Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Wetlands/401 Unit • 1621 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] • FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/l0% post consumer paper
ou
on
aq
CIO
au
w ?

o•? COD

.? o

-? C4?
a?

"CB)
w
u p 1 p y ,Y U
00
P .-- cd
p 4Z4 'Lf z C

0 v
z
o,o oo 40, w '• Z 0 4?

r. u

Q cl c o F-I
-? W
A H ° o ,?

0 C6 C)
?ToN
• x?a°o
00
?Do

a
a
a
R
C
co
c
a
c
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Jennifer Frye
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: 1 arry Cable
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Headwaters of NC, LLC *DAM* County Ashe
Project Number 00 0885 County2
Recvd From APP Region Winston-Salem
Received Date 6/5/00 Recvd By Region
Project Type dam (see 000736 for road crossing)
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
39 ? O ?- O N ? 10-2-13 ? TR 50,70. ?- 210.00
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
r Stream preserve F_ F--F7,000-00
n \
i
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? OQ Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond. O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
Additional information supplied by applicant on Sept. 9, 2000.
The WSRO recommends that this WO certification he issued with the following conditions.
1 Deed restrictions be placed on all remaining lots to ensure continuing compliance with water
quality rags
They impose to mitigate through stream preservation - on site. They have apex. 7000 LF that
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name Headwaters of NC, LLC *DAM* County Ashe
Project Number 00 0885 Regional Contact: Jennifer Frye
Date: 9/8/2000
Comments (continued from page 1):
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955 51 LeHLN5 UJWANY rAtat to r
Q 4 L-j
jom
...s.Irv or
r7,r.
HEADWATERS
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CRESTON TOWNSHIP
THREE TOP ROAD
OEM
000885
Owners: Headwaters of NC, LLC

06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955 5i tt'HtN!6 UUMVAvY "QV- VG r
?? Fartfiets
k
HeadwatergAhocation Map on
r
? • AppleGrow Brandon
uller T o
'
sing mpler
?' •
• cold Spri
.2t
•ComK ?? sr,attey Springs
H • Ountain City RotenNo
• ??F?'FN?rv azrensville
Bath WW 10 p
17oe
? Wakwt G •Aahler>d
ouns • rsston
-? Creek Srnethpo n
mead Midway •G t Jetfer agoner
.Cracerks Nock Swmdand Tmut Mt Jefferson St ark
s
Bakers Gap r S R"'er ,
Tdiwr ?b
MiY Creek word,
•OVW
KGOW • North F 1
OOF ? M odd
Fabst Grow M-*
•
Peoria *Bet 1 Mast one
? • Leander ? • Soda ill ` Brvwnwod
ee•c?+ Sugar Grave 421
sands ?.-,
?Keliervtle g'"`r ?' w `- 5S
u LOVII SOU FO aver •
?Rom
Grandview
Valle Crucls state un Triplett
Beech Mountain ?I P • Z-H • ba
2--
Ponds Of
Shuk Mills
?e•
nner Elk s H M riai Park
JOB P' Memorial Park• OWi , ock
low Army ill Park
•Muiberry
•& ffab can
•Patmons Ridge
Zion
Grarxtm
06
Valley
walk
06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955 5itrntrv5 ?.umrHn7

CCRPS ACTION ID:
OEM ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTSD (PROVIDE `:AT'IOMIIOE PERMIT K}
ppE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO TSE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CERTIFICATION
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 403,
3) COORDINATION WITS THE NC DIVISION OS COASTAL IQU4AGF•MENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE ADDRESSES T). SEVEN
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF THEI?E?SDIVISYONEOFYENVI ONMEI3TRLEEMANAGEMENT
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT T LEASE PRINT.
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
' ea ?
1. OWNERS NAME;
2. MAILING ADDRESS: r?
SUBDIVISION NAME:
t - N ZIP CODE".. d .r
CITY : ? oaf Ot'K?- STATE : .
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT Mom
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) : `? r C!?
?.anS?
ccjilt:n?
IZQ? ??'
4. J (WORK):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): 7o4-
IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: t ,
t ` ` f ?ca? W a- ?--
??:SSt? 1 V?1

5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PR£FERPBLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRA aI;
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE) : 1 S 1V
COUNTY: NEAREST TOWN OR CITY:
06/08/2000 11:59 704335yy55 ??crnci?a - --
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD 0 5-V
`o c)
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
9c"
lQ a?- n
, A
7 ,•r.:'e 5 A a
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: *\
RIVER BASIN:
if ' AS (Tj®RO, TIDAL IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED G RESOURCEpTATE S (ORW),,T
7a. WATER
•(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQa)? OUTSTANDIN IF YES, EXPLAIN= '
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ J NO T ? fa Jk C? ? ft?r+'? -
?' ; a 1as? G c_,TT
_
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WIT?NC NNR ORTTH (CAROLIN DIV l ION0OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMEN p4
7c• IF THE. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A CCOA TUB COUNTY. (SEEDPASGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTItS), VHAr IS THE L
8a . • F#AVE' ANY' SECTION • 404" PERMITS'-BEEN -PREVI0gSLY• REQUESTED, FOR USE- ON • -
•
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO P4 IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
,
PREVIOUS'PERMYT.AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION) :
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED t'OR HIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES ? NO IF YES,
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LSD' BYTE:
• 9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS. oC;'TED ON PROJECT
r
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: • O 4 AG -Zv1 .1i.F EXCAVATION
FLOODING: ??`-103Z?.F OTHER:
TOTAL. ACRES TO BE INPACTED:
DRAINAGE:
lab. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE : ?.? AFT.ER :
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH' AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT 'AFTER: o/A -
(2) THE C EL I PACTS WILL RESULT FRO : (CHECK ALL'THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION' PLACEMENT OF.PIPE IN?CHANNEL•:
CONSTRUCTION OF.A.DAM/FLQODINGs
• '• •• CHANNEL EXCAVATION':.
OTHER:
11-•• IF CONSTRUCTION OF..A POND •IS PROPOSED,. Wji..ZS. THE. SIZE QF THE..
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? •
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X-11" DRAWINGS'
ONLY): -- f
13. PURPOSE OF' PROPOSED WORK:
•3^
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIEU
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
15. YOU`ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
USFWS) AND/OR•-NATIONAL'MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE. PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING"ENDBNGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT•'MAY"BE-AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESEAGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE^?QL33-RE -T*--CON-TAC.T. THE STATE HISTORIC _PRESERVAT=N_0.FFICER
(SHPO)'' (SEE AGENCY ADD ,SSES- -SHEET)----REGARDING •THE•-PRESENCE OF -HISTORIC.
PROPERTIES.._T-N- fHE PERMIT AREA 'WHICH MAY -BE AFFECTED BY. THE-'PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE-CONTACTED:-
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF POBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND'
YES (] NO {IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES.THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION-OF AN. ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [ ] NO [ J
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES ( ] NO [ l
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
-STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE"NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL. POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING-THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORT14
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF. ADMINISTRATION,-13.6 W33T8369ES STREET, RAL
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEBKONE (919)

18. THE GHDINCLUDED ORAPPLICATION
PR MATERIAL
PROPOSED ACTI ACTTVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED
,
INTO WETLANDS:
LAKES
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS,
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY S (?2ERMITTENTDANDEP PERMIT 1PROPERTY8, 21,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAM
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAPESCALES ESHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEST OR THEIR 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. ATTACH A COPY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e , WHAT IS LAND USE OF PROPERTY?
r S :.r
S, 0 rthc; b
r ..aleC
}
f. IF APPLICABLE, WKXT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
.. - •? • • ? ?o e'er ?- - .
q , SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AdTHOKTZATION •LETTM, ?F ' APpLfCABZaE':
NOTE: WETLANDS-OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO.:
1•) ISSUANCE *OF A. SECTION 404 CORPS A ENGINEERS E OFTr 401 2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) OCC IFIICATION, FAND ROM THE
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL AAROLINA COA5TALTtrsANAGEMENTD
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH C
PROGRAM,
-J2-7,10,?l
/DATE • • •
OW E '•S/ AGE T' IGNA,TURE
(p, 'S SIGN RE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM ,
THE. OWNER IS PROVIDED, (18g.))
5
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROPOSED DAM
PROJECT NAME
TOTAL PROJECT AREA
OWNER
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
NO. OF LOTS
COUNTY
STATE
NEAREST STREAM
RIVER BASIN
LOCATION-(5.7 MILES FROM TODD)
EXIST. PIPE TO BE REPLACED (270 LF.)
STREAM AREA IMPACTED W/ NEW CONST.
PROPOSED DAM - EARTH FILL (64 CY.-0.04 AC))
PROPOSED LAKE - FLOODED (0.12 AC)
TOTAL AREA OF IMPACT
TOTAL WETLAND AREA ON SITE

HEADWATERS
449.80 ACRES
HEADWATERS OF NC, LLC
500 HERITAGE COURT
CHARLOTTE, NC 28207
704-651-5424
RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY
22
ASHE
NORTH CAROLINA
THREE TOP CREEK
NORTH FORK-NEW RIVER
THREE TOP ROAD (NCSR 1100)
9
274.15 LF.
1278 LF.
0.16 AC.
1.43 AC.
5AR400 SY PROJECT SUMMARY
99L
NO.
JOB NO. >_ES

CHECKED BY
HEAD WA TER S
0

`

00RP5.DWG. ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA x 281 x
DRAWING No. Luther E. Smith & Associates, P.A. r Z
G
`
SHEET LAND PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I _w
"
'
'
1 of 2 119-8 Third Avenue West Phan [phone] E: r
•
7 a
Hendersonvilte, NC 28792 Tax [phone]
REV. 6-8-00 1:-mall Laft-o.Com
0 50 100 200
STREAM AREA FL00
LENGTH STREAM FlU
LENGTH STREAM IMP
LAKE SURFACE AREA
5/I R400 LE5 PROPOSED LAXE •.
99L935
JOB NO.
C m B
HEAD RYA TER S

'
y:
GORPS.DWG. ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA : x
281 = x

DRAWING No.
Luther E. Smith & Associates P.A. "
r"
SHEET LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCETrECTM
119-8 Third Avenue West Phone [phone]
r

2 of I 2 E
Hendersonville. NC 28792 !e= [phone]
REV. 6-8-00 E-mail lsa0a-oxam
06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955 STEPHENS COMPANY PAGE 07
HEADWATERS
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CRESTON TOWNSHIP
THREE TOP ROAR
Owners: lReadwaters of NC, LLC
06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955 5itrntna kurir"-1i
. ? ?, Fartfisi; ?
Headwaterrhocation Map on
• • Apple Grow Blandon
uller
+r •?t,tmpkr
+ cows ' sing
oComet Shelley Springs
H . ountain City arrensville
saw i ? Ig p sthans:
Doe
sz,
ouns Walnut G land
?
•
•? C rsston
nirk Sms? n
mead Midway ?G Y t Jeifer a?oner
+Crardws Neck Sutherland Trout Mt Jefferson S ark
,
S IWO ,
$ Mill Creek y N04 For ? Tolivw to K`
?+ e7 +Pottertawrt eaod?v?aters
lenda
? j e +?
Rseee + North F
+ M odd leetwo
Forest Grove ?
Bet 1 ? ??° N . ? ?idlewl '
Peoria • Mast cne
? + Leander ? ? Soda Ill Brownwood zt,
30 Sugar Grove • 42'
, ?.?
?Kslkrvft u grw* w Pettons Ridge Lodi Valle Crucis j state ur Triplett
Harley
Beech Mountain ? p • zm • boo + agetown
Ponds Of
Shuft Mills
nrw Elk S H ne M rial Park
Julian P • Memorial Park• OWi Ock -ro
low Amley ~?
ill Park
/ t
f/
Buffalo Caw
1 221 ichland Finley
plan
nve a
Mo u Gnu,afym
t3tn6s
4_ _._ +R0'?0f ?MulberrY -11, ?a adkin Valley
06/08/2000 11:59 7043359955
OEM ID:
5 l LeHLNS UJWANY rHUC v
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTEO ( PROS ZDE IOr1WIDE FERMIT k) :
PRE--CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE
1) NOTIFICATION TO M CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 403, CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITS THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL rgalAGFMENT
ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
SEND THE ORIGINAL E AND (1) CORPS OF P
FIELD OFFICE O THE
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THvLEASE PRINT?ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
1. OWNERS NAME:
I
2. MAILING ADDRESS :
%
SUBDIVISION NAME:
----------------------------
ZIP CODE:- 0-
A 'D rz? STATE:
CITY: PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT MOM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) : ,`oo ci
n r
aa?r? , , ?' ?3 64- 6?
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) : (WORK)
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL' ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:

5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPNI;
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE): 1 r. S tV
COUNTY' NEAREST 'TOWN OR CITY:
06/08/2000 11: 59 /b4 i i59y55 J i crr?iti? ?urirra. ^?- --
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
-1-CpAA .NC.
k -
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN:
(S WATERS (? W),?TWATER
74. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED RESOURCE
• (SA) , HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW) , OUTSTANDINZF YES, EXPLAIN:
SUPPLY IS OR Ws-II)? YES [ ] NO
?'" ; ? ?aSS ? rya k'
7b :._
. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA I`ISIONOOCOASTAL
• MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL;CONCERN •(AEC). YES .•.
rOR
7C. IF THE. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL PI T(LU?)EDES?GNATION?
LIST bF COASTAL COUNTIES), RHAT"IS THE LAND USE !v .
-SE' 014
' 8a.- ItAVE-ANY' SECTION-404 PERMITS-BEEN
THIS FREVIQt3O I EEACTIONDI AR IINUMB R OF
PROPERTY? YES ( J NO P4 IF YES, P
PREVIOUS'PERMIT.AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED IOR HIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES NO ?- IF YES,
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED' PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
'Fb+??,Dy_ '6Tp.TaiL?Y?ora-o?t?'?e?+c,?c?s??
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED :
lob. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: _1d_ -?--- AFTER: /? FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): Ft FT
WIDTH' AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: ?-
(2) RE CHANNEL I PACTS WIL RESULT FRO : (CHECK ALL* THAT APPLY)
.OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL.:
- CHANNEL EXCAVATION'. CONSTRUCTION OF A,DAH/FLQODT-NG:
-- E Q{.
OTHER:
11.•• IF CONSTRUCTION OF..A POND -IS PROPOSED,. WjiAT• ._S. THE. SIZ. F QF THE;..
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE'AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X•11" DRAWINGS'
...,r v \ T .. ?r-? sAA-?L? . ? ? Y3doA?r? ?-?? i?YIG]?'?il?'p' . c
.aG, 116
13. PURPOSE 'Or PROPOSED WORK:

. .3
Gµ A+_*"tdl.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
t
?i-ra.r?! "' ""'?' • • 1 ?971?DX3? rdt ?l..QT
15. YOU'ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
(USFWS) AND/OR- ATIONAL-MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE. PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTE OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING -ENDZNGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT,'MAY"BE-AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED. (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESEAGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE--IMLZUiitED--TO--CONTAC.T. THE STATE HISTORIC _ERwERVA=QN-QfFICER
(SHPO)' (SEE AGENCY D? D 5,sEs--SHEET)--RHGARDZNG THE ePRES£d1CE Off' -HISTORIC.
PROPERTIES -I33~Z'?IE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY ' BE P,FFECTED BY THE "PROPOSED ?E
PROJECT. DATE•CONTACTED:-
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?.. ;.
YES (J NO (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES .THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION-OF AN-ENVIRONMENTAL'
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES H NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES ( J NO [ J
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE"NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL. POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING -THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF. A6MINISTRATION,'13.6 WEST *JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone]...
4-
C04"mia .
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE. PERMIT NUMBERS 14,. 18, 21, 26,
MAP - (INTERMITTENT
29, AND OWN ONLTHESTREAMS
SHOULDPBEMININCH EQUALS 500FEETYOR 1
MUST BE SH SH
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
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. ATTACH A COPY Or THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? }
g. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
C-r
q, SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION 'LETTER', IF"APPLICABLE':
NOTE: WETLANDS•OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1} ISSUANCE -OF A• SECTION '404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS HERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR FAIVELITOY) CER401 TIFICATIONDIVISION
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER Q A
3) (IN TRE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF CTASTNORT?AC?O CAROLINA COASTAL THMANAGEMENTD
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH
PROGRAM
?lzZlo
' - - - " •
'OW E S/AGE T' IGNA.TURE DATE
(A'S SIGN RE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM ,
THE. OWNER YS PROVIDED. (I8g.) y
5
PROJECT SUMMARY
ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NAME
TOTAL PROJECT AREA
OWNER
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
NO. OF LOTS
HEADWATERS
449.80 ACRES
HEADWATERS OF NC, LLC
500 HERITAGE COURT
CHARLOTTE, NC 28207
704-651-5424
RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY
22
COUNTY
STATE
NEAREST STREAM
RIVER BASIN
LOCATION (5.7 MILES FROM TODD)
EXIST. PIPE TO BE REPLACED (270 LF.)
STREAM AREA IMPACTED W/ NEW CONST.
BANK STABILIZATION - BRIDGE AREA
TEMP. STREAM CROSSING
NEW CULVERTS (50 LF.)
TOTAL AREA OF IMPACT
TOTAL WETLAND AREA ON SITE

ASHE
NORTH CAROLINA
THREE TOP CREEK
NORTH FORK-NEW RIVER
THREE TOP ROAD (NCSR 1100)
9
0.05 AC.
0.06 AC.
0.004 AC.
0.114 AC.
1.43 AC.
5/1800 0 BY PROJECT SUMMARY
a9L935 LES HEADWATERS 0"""
JOB N0. CHECKED BY "-

GORPSGC ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ?
Q$?

DRAWING N0.

Luther E. Smith & Associates, P.A. _ x
x
; r
SHEET LAND PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE G '
:
119-8 Third A"nue Vent n
[phone] ==ww
Cd
-
1 O of one r
,
E

Bandersonvnle. NC 28792 Taz [phone] .
REV. 6-8-00 E-man base-o.com '"
CROSSING Ton nawV>D jt6
USE - HANK AREAS TO HE d
(SHED AFTER USE
0 25 50 100
SCALE: 1" = 50'
PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE TO REPLACE
ZSTM(; - SEE SHEET 4
PLAN
SHOOTS RIVER BOULDERS PLACED TO FILL
OPSItlNJG. 111Th FB.TES FAHIDC BEHIND.
BACL ILL WITH SOIL AND COMPACT. SEED
DISTURBED AREA AS DIRBI."TSD.-?
SECTION
12- of 8--8- DIA: SMOOTE RIVER ROM AS REQ.
FOR FIRM VEHICLE SUPPORT. EXTEND UP
APPROACH TO 1' ABOVE WATERLINE
SLOPE SIDE BANKS AT ENTRY AT 2:1
INSTALL REIN. SILT FENCE AT TOE OF SLOPE
AS DIRECTED AND ' I AND MULCH BANKS.
STABILIZATION FABRIC - WHEN RIB.
8- - 4--8- RIPRAP 12' HIDE FOR
MINIMUM OF 20'. REMOVE RIP-RAP
AFTER USE AND GRADE AND SEED
ALL DISTURBED AREAS AS DIRECTED
Sl100 L??
?Nni sr TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
99La35
.? NO. LE5
CHEOM Ff
HEAD WA TERS ;' ? G.A
Q
`

GCRPS DWG. ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA `: :7?
x 289

DRAWING NO.
Luther E. Smith & Associates, P.A. x
. r
SHEET
2
f 3 LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
119-8 Third Avenue West Phone [phone] y.,
o Hendenonvi8e, MC aa792 rez (m) a97-8W
REV. 6-8-00 L-mall Lep-o.com .
AREA OF EXPOSED EARTH
EMBANKI0INT TO BE STABH ZED
Arl?
l
0 25 50
SCALE: 1" = 25'
PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE 18140'
TO REPLACE EX[ST. SUPPORT
ON EXIST. ROAD BED
AREA OF IMPACT - 0.05 ac.
EDGE OF STREAM
SMOOTH RIM BOULDERS PLACED AGARW
EXIST SLOPE, VTTH FILTER FABRIC MWD.
BACK= WITH SOIL. AND , COMPACT. SEED
DISTURBED AREA AS DIRECTED.
ASPHALT PAVING
PROPOSED BRIDGE ?W/ ABC BASE
MTER
SECTION
WS
AREA OF IMPACT

5/18400 LE5 BANK STABILIZATION - BRIDGE CROSSING
9aL935 Lis
HEAD WA TER S
'
,,011
NO. a+Eac?n BY v+.

GORPS.DWG. ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
x 281 X
DRAWING No. Luther E. Smith & Associates, P.A.
SHEET LAND PLANNNG • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
119-8 Third Avenue wed. Phone [phone] L=
,s%w"C
g?? ;`
3 of 3 .
DIY G
Hendersonville. NC 88798 Fax [phone]
REV. 6-8-00 t-mail taa?a-a oam

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
--t
4NCDENR
July 14, 2000;
"VE
f?'$? •Sd 1?hIL l7r:LPSG°?, - ? dud ? C '?
JAMES E3. HUNT JR. Certified Mail 7099 3220-0006 8505 7623
GO?iEaNbR s Return Receipt Requested
Headwaters of NC, LLC
BILL,HOLMAN 500 Hermitage Court
SECRETARY Charlotte, NC-28207
SUBJECT: Headwaters of NC, LLC
KERB T. STEVENS DWQProJect # 00 0885
DIRECTOR Ashe County
Dear Sirs:
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
This letter is to acknowledge your written request for additional time to
respond to our letter dated July 7, 2000. The Division appreciates your efforts to
address our concerns and will continue to place your project on hold until we receive
the additional information. We are requesting (by copy of this letter) that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers continue to place your project on administrative hold.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mrs. Jennifer
Frye or myself at [phone].
43 is
Sincerely,
f/Larry D. Coble
WQ Regional Supervisor
cc: Mr. Russell Weil, 1513 Ideal Way, Charlotte, NC 28203
Mr. Luther Smith, LSA, 119-13 3`d Ave. West, Hendersonville, NC 28792
Raleigh Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands/401 Unit Central Office
Central Files
WSRO RECEIVED
JUL 21 2000
NC WETLANDS
RESTCRAT! 0;41
585 WAUGHTOWN STREET, WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27107
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
V.A.
July 7, 2000
Certified Mail 7099 3220 0006 8505 7593
Return Receipt Requested
Headwaters of NC, LLC
500 Hermitage Court
Charlotte, NC 28207
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Information
Headwaters of NC, LLC
DWQ Project #00 0885
Ashe County
Dear Sirs:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill
material into 274.15 linear feet and water impoundment of 1278 linear feet of surface
waters in Ashe County for the purpose of residential development. Insufficient
evidence is present in our files to conclude that your project must be built as planned
in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0506. Therefore, unless
modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we will have to move
toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0507(e) and
will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional
information. We are requesting (by copy of this letter) that the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
(1) Please provide us with information supporting your position that states
your project must be constructed as planned and that you have no
practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters and/or wetlands.
Documentation such as maps, narratives, economic analyses, that you
can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be
helpful in our review of your 401 Certification request.
(2) Please provide documentation detailing you position that the project
has been designed such that adverse impacts to surface waters have
been minimized and existing uses have been protected to the best of
your ability.
A'
Headwaters of NC, LLC
Page 2
(3) The project will also require compensatory mitigation for the proposed
dam fill (274.15 linear feet) as described in 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h).
Your mitigation proposal is insufficient since none was proposed. If it
is possible to construct your pond with less than 150 linear feet of dam
fill impact, compensatory mitigation would not be required.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending one
copy of this information to me and one copy to John R. Dorney, 4401 Reedy
Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607. If we do not hear from you in three weeks, we will
assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project
as withdrawn. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mrs.
Jennifer Frye or myself at [phone].
Sincerely,
Larry D. Coble
WQ Regional Supervisor
cc: Mr. Russell Weil, 1513 Ideal Way, Charlotte, NC 28203
Mr. Luther Smith, LSA, 119-B 3`a Ave. West, Hendersonville, NC 28792
Raleigh Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands/401 Unit Central Office
Central Files
WSRO
00 0885, He ydwaters,Ashe co.
Subject: 00 0885, Headwaters,Ashe co.
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 11:40:02 -0400
From: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: "Cyndi.Bell" <[e-mail]>
This phase on hold. See attached.
Thanks for your help.
Jen
Name: 000885.doc
[000885.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 7/10/00 12:46 PM
Wetlands Tracking
Projects'
ToiaIT41 ®®
Facility Name Headwaters of NC, LLC *DAM*
Project Number 00 0885
O Inactive
Project Type purpose of dam (see 000736 for road crossing)
a
Location Three Top Creek
County 'Ashe
County2
Region Winston-Salem
DCM Office _
COE Office Raleigh
401s Last Total Total Total Mit Recvd Sent to Recvd Action 401 401 Totals Mit
Recvd From Date Region Region Date Last Action Acres Feet Acres Feet
GYP 6/5/2000 6-22-2000 401
''`
4011
for Pro
Inspections/ Violations
Inspection Date Inspector Compliant Letter Type Date Sent Reply Date Current St

PINTAIL PARTNERS
August 23, 2000
)JA
Mr. Larry D. Coble
NCDEHNR
Division of Water Quality
Winston Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston Salem, NC 27107
Dear Larry:
SEP 12 2000
I am writing to respond to your request for additional information concerning DWQ Project #00 0885 in
Ashe County, which we call Headwaters. Our engineers have finished their reports concerning this dam
and we are now in a position to answer all of your questions as they pertain to our request for a 401
certification cpncerning this project.
I have broken this response down to three brief narratives and the subsequent documentation that
corresponds to each narrative, in order to address each of the three areas of concern identified in your
letter requesting additional information. I trust that you will find this information more than satisfactory,
however, should you need any -additional information please do not hesitate to call me.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you
soon.
Sincerely,
Russel Weil
Cc: John Domey, Cyndi Karoli DWQ Raleigh Office
POST OFFICE BOX 11697 CHARLOTTE, NC 28220 704-651-5424
Response to DWQ Request for Additional Information
(1) Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must
be constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in
these waters and or wetlands.
Headwaters is a conservation project. I thinkthatitis imperative thatDWQ understand that when all of
the construction that will be allowed under the restrictive covenants and/or the conservation easement
involved with this project is completed, less than 75 acres of the entire 450 acre tract of land will be
disturbed. We are using private dollars to protect over 375 acres of ground and over 7,000 linear feet of
pristine mountain streams. In order to accomplish this goal and raise the amount of dollars needed to
complete the project, we must have this small water impoundment for three main reasons; The economic
factor of providing a recreational amenity on the property for the owners to utilize, the absolute need for
the local volunteer fire department to be.-able to replenish.their water trucks on _site.in the event of.a fire,
and the desire to provide habitat for a wide variety of both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life
through the development of this impoundment.
From an economic standpoint we needed to create a pond for the recreational use of our owners, primarily
for fishing and swimming. Because Headwaters is such a low impact development, we have to provide
some sort of amenity to justify the monetary value to the buyer and allow us to protect the large majority
of the land. We are not buildings golf course, riding- pastures, water slides etc, we are. simply providing s
small impoundment to accentuate the landscape. We have already had the Natural Heritage Foundation's
biologist, Shawn Oakley, do a baseline study of the entire property, and it was his belief that the location
we have finally chosen for the pond was best for two reasons. First, the area had previously been
disturbed and secondly because so many of the other areas along the stream beds contained numerous rare
species of plant life.
Just important as the recreational need for the impoundment, is the-need fora-reservoir to_be used as a
well in the event of a fire. Due to the very remote location of this project, it will be very difficult for the
local volunteer fire department to reach the homes that will eventually be constructed. The fire
department will have to have a way to refill their water trucks on site without having to waste up to 45
minutes going back down the mountain, filling up and then returning. We have designed the dam so that
the road is directly adjacent to the impoundment and the water trucks will be able to pump straight from
our pond.
Lastly, we have employed Mickey Henson at Appalachian Environmental Services to oversee this entire
process. Mickey worked with NCDEHNR for five years and is making sure that the impoundment best
serves the surrounding ecosystems. He is designing the bottom of the impoundment with latoral shelves,
various stone cover areas and numerous settings for aquatic life. We will send you those drawings as soon
as Mickey has finished them. The impoundment will also serve to work with the other wildlife in the area
as noticed by Ron Linville of the Wildlife Resource Commission upon his visit. He noted that it would be
a benefit to all of theturkeys, grouse, and-deer on.the property.
I have included a copy of the baseline study done by the Natural Heritage Foundation, a copy of our
approved permit from the Corps of Engineers and the letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Response to DWQ Request for Additional Information
(2) Please provide documentation detailing your position that the project has been designed
such that adverse impacts to surface waters have been minimized and existing uses have
been protected to the best of your ability.
We looked at several different areas and ways to create this impoundment and consulted with biologists,
land planners, conservation groups, government agencies and surveyors, all of who visited the site and
agreed that this was the best location for the dam.
I have included the very detailed engineering reports concerning the dam. They will show the site, the
drawings and the immense research that went into the planning of this pond. We are utilizing a cold water
return system-to provide for life below the impoundment. We have done extensive soil testing to make
sure the area of impoundment will not effect any ofthe surrounding areas, and we have designed the dam
to the best of our ability to incorporate previously disturbed areas.
Please refer to-the . cluded Report of GeotechnicalExploration forReadwaters-Dam in Ashe County,
prepared by Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Included in that report is a Hydrological survey and the
dam drawings, both completed by McGill Associates.
Response to DWQ Request for Additional Information
(3) The project will require compensatory mitigation for the proposed dam fill (274.15 linear feet).
Your mitigation proposal was insufficient since none was proposed. If it is possible to construct
your pond with less than 150 linear feet of dam fill impact, compensatory mitigation would not be
required.
Since first receiving your letter we have spent two months studying this problem and reconfiguring our
dam and impoundment area. We have removed roughly 65 feet of dam fill impact area, but due to the
meandering of the stream at the site of the dam and the impact of changing the existing road, we have
been unable to reduce our dam M impact below the 450 linear feet that you.have suggested.
The dam fill impact area, including the 10 feet of contact that the primary spillway has with the steam is
now just under 210 linear feet. The main problem with reducing this number any further is the fact that
the existing road would have to be relocated. All of the roads that we are utilizing were put in place in
1985. To limit any further disturbance to the area, we are simply cleaning up the existing road system. We
have designed the dam adjacent to an existing road for the use of fire trucks in the event of the fire. That
road had already been laid over the streambed with a culvert to allow for stream flow. We do not want to
interfere any further with the down stream flow below the road and the dam.
Therefore we have to mitigate for roughly 210 feet of dam fill impact area. It is my understanding that the
ratio for conservation of streambed is 3 feet for every 1 foot impacted. We intend to place upwards to
7000 linear feet of streambed into perpetual deeded restrictions for conservation. We have gone a step
further by working with biologists to identify the extreme need to preserve the areas along these
streambeds and to identify that the area being disturbed is the most suitable for this purpose.
e
DECEIVED AUG - 9 2000
Action ID: 200021548
County: Ashe
GENERAL PERMIT REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE VERIFICATION
Property Authorized
owner: Headwaters of NC, LLC Agent: Luther E. Smith
c/o Russell Weil
Address: 500 Hermitage Court Address: 119-b Third Avenue West
Charlotte, NC 28207 Hendersonville, NC 28792
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (Waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): Headwaters of NC,
LLC's property located off of Three Top Road (SR 1100), adjacent to Three Top Creek, near Todd,
in Ashe County, North Carolina.
Description of Activity: Proposed residential subdivision development including fill for a small
pond construction resulting in impacts to approximately 0.10 acres of the jurisdictional waters of an
unnamed and above headwaters tributary of Three Top Creek. This work is subject to the review of
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and must be in compliance with the attached
recommendations of the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
X Nationwide Permit Number NWP 18
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General / Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact john Thomas at telephone numbeyf(919),876,8441, extegsion 25.
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Date
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
CF:
r
e
VED
2000
aranch
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Dorney, DWQ
Raleigh 401 Certification
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 30, 2000 /
SUBJECT: Review of an application by Headwaters Property, DWQ # 000736, Ashe County.
The applicant is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain 404/401 Permits and Certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
NC Division of Water Quality. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field
biologists on our staff are familiar.with habitat-values of the project area. A field visit was conducted on December
9, 1999. These comments are provided in accordance with:provisions<of.the-Clean:Water Act.of:1977 (33 U.S.C.:::'
466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Three Top Creek is a good quality Designated Public Mountain Trout Water. Some of the tributaries on the
site may provide habitat for wild brook trout. Based on the information provided by the applicant, our site visit, and
our information on the range of trout in the project area, we do not believe this project will cause significant effects
to waters supporting trout as the waters to be impounded are small headwaters above some steep waterfalls.
Therefore, we do not object to the project as proposed providing the following recommendations are implemented:
1. The pond should have a cool water release and a required minimum flow release in order to
protect aquatic life below the dam.
2. The Natural Heritage Program should indicate that no federal or state listed species are likely to be
found on the site of the dam or pond`.
3. Routine 401 Certification minimization requirements should be implemented for the remainder of
the development, including roadways and stream crossings. Stream crossings, if needed, should
not impede the movement of aquatic life.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact. me at336n69-9453.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

1
WATERFALL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
(a part of the Long Hope Valley ecological site)
DATES VISITED: September 17, 1998, and October 1 & 15, 1999
INVESTIGATOR: Shawn Oakley, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (Western Regional Office),
Division of Parks and Recreation, 23 Heather Downs Dr., Alexander, NC 28701.
Phone [phone]
REPORT AUTHOR: Shawn Oakley
OWNER: Mr. John Barry
OWNER CONTACT: Permission to survey was initially granted by the former owner and
subsequently by Mr. Barry, through the project developer Russell Weil (Phone[phone]).
Survey was conducted at the request of the North Carolina Nature Conservancy.
COUNTY: Ashe QUADS: Todd, Zionville, Baldwin Gap, and Warrensville
SIZE: The tract was listed at 452 acres by the Ashe County Tax Office under the former owner,
J. Caldwell.
HOW DETERMINED: Information collected previously at Ashe County Tax Mapping Office.
LOCATION: The tract is located in southwestern Ashe County, on east-facing slopes on the
east side of the Long Hope Valley ecological site. Thge center of the tract is is about 0.8 air due
southeast of Long Hope Falls. The entrance to the tract lies on the west side of Three Top Road
(SR 1100), about 2 miles south of Trout, NC. Access is by permission only, through a steel gate
at a plank bridge over Three Top Creek. The tract extends from the creek upward to the primary
ridgeline on the east side of Long Hope Valley.
PROVINCE: Blue Ridge Range WATERSHED: Three Top Creek > N. Fork New River
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The tract, which lies on the east slope of the high mountains that
ring Long Hope Valley, extends upward from Three Top Creek to a common border with the
Bald Mountain Trust (Richardson family) tract. It contains mature, good quality examples of
Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, and Rich Montane Seep communities over most
of the tract. A small example of the uncommon Montane Cliff community is also present. The
tract also supports large populations of meehania (1VMeehania cordata), trailing wolfsbane
(Aconitum reclinatum), and one of only three populations of elliptic shinleaf (Pyrola elliptica)
known to be extant south of West Virginia. From the tract's main access point at Three Top
Creek, slopes steepen quickly into well-defined cove areas, one of which is ascended by Road la.
Slopes remain moderately steep to steep above the cove areas, becoming broader and more
exposed and with smaller drainages and occasional seeps. The upper elevations of the tract
2
extend to the top of the ridgeline on the east side of Long Hope Valley. Most areas are quite
moist due to tree cover and elevation, but some spur ridges are drier. Although a few areas are
rocky, soils are generally quite deep and high in organic material.
An area that was recently logged lies on lower slopes just opposite the entrance gate to the
property: it is proposed as a caretaker's residence. Commons areas proposed near the northern
tract boundary include: 1) a walking trail area in the cove between Road 3 and the waterslide,
and 2) a trout pond area and picnic area on the slopes above Road 3 and below Road lb. The
location of areas, as currently understood, are shown on the attached map.
+.
The area has value for wildlife. Fresh claw markings of a black bear were noted in a proposed
commons area. A raptor carrying a snake was noted on middle slopes. Salamanders are
abundant. No breeding bird information exists for the tract, but the intact forests are probably
utilized primarily by forest interior species.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE: The Long Hope Valley ecological site (of which the tract is a part)
is nationally significant. The tract described in this report is probably of at least regional
significance alone. Excellent quality examples of the Rich Subtype of the Northern Hardwood
Forest community type are widespread throughout the site and well-defined coves support
excellent examples of the Montane Rich Subtype of Rich Cove Forest. Both of these
communities are unusually nutrient-rich (due to influence from amphibolite rock). These
communities are more uncommon than typical, less nutrient-rich examples found elsewhere in
the North Carolina mountains. Good examples of Rich Montane Seep and Mafic Cliff
communities are also present. Three rare plant species are present on the tract. Large
populations of the trailing wolfsbane (Aconitum reclinatum) and meehania (Meehania cordata),
both significantly rare species, are widespread over the site, in coves, seepages, and on mesic
slopes. A small, but very significant, population of elliptic shinleaf (Pyrola elliptica), a State
Candidate for listing, occurs in three locations on the tract. Statewide, elliptic shinleaf is known
from only three locations. There are no known populations of elliptic shinleaf.south of the next
nearest populations in West Virginia. The tract provides access to a small High Elevation Rocky
Summit community, with a small occurrence of the State Candidate fir clubmoss (Huperzia
appalachiana), which is located on a neighboring tract.
MAP EXPLANATION: Two topographic maps are attached. One shows the tract boundaries
at 1:24,000 scale. The second is an enlargement of the tract (scale not known). The second map
shows 1) primary concentrations of rare plants (coded in color); 2) areas indicated as proposed
commons areas, including a trout pond/picnic/hiking trail area; 3) the existing road system
through the tract, with various segments of the road system labelled, for clarity; and 4) areas
known to be disturbed, shown as areas marked with X's.
OTHER ATTACHMENTS: Parcel identification numbers and deed book information for the
28 tracts that the previous owner, J. Baxter Caldwell, had surveyed are provided. They were
obtained through the Ashe County tax mapping GIS website on 10 October 1999.
3
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
ASPECT: All, but primarily east.
SLOPE: Moderately steep slopes cover much of the tract. Steep slopes occur near streams on
middle and upper slopes. Several gently sloping to level ridgetops are present.
ELEVATION: 3160- 4760 feet.
TOPOGRAPHY: Open slopes and coves associated with a tributary of Three Top Creek. The
coves contain numerous smaller drainages with concave slopes and intervening convex slopes
between drainages. The upper slopes of the tract corner on the crests of two knobs. Narrow
ridgetops border on the north and south tract boundaries, as well as along the western tract
boundary.
HYDROLOGY AND MOISTURE: Primarily terrestrial hydrology with dry mesic to mesic
moisture levels. Palustrine hydrology in Rich Montane Seep communities along drainages.
GEOLOGY: Amphibolite (Zata) (from Geologic Map of North Carolina, 1985).
SOIL: Soil survey information not available. Field observations show soils to be extremely
nutrient-rich (based on plant species indicators) and high in organic matter (generally very dark
in color).
COMMENTS ON PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: The system of roads (shown on the attached
map) provides access to most parts of the tract. Culverts are installed where roads cross larger
drainages. Old barbed-wire fences exist along parts of the northern site boundary and the
southern site boundary. The waterfall for which Waterfall Mountain development is named is
actually a rushing waterslide roughly 30 feet tall, at about 3600 feet in elevation, below the end
of Road 3 in one of two steep-sided cove areas.
NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
COMMUNITY NAME: Rich Cove Forest (Montane Rich Subtype)
STRUCTURE, STRATAL DOMINANTS AND OTHER SPECIES PRESENT: The closed
canopy is dominated by Acer saccharum, Aesculus flava, Quercus rubra, and Betula
alleghaniensis with lesser numbers of Tilia heterophylla, Betula lenta, Magnolia acuminata,
Fraxinus americana, Prunus serotina, and Liriodendron tulipifera. The sparse to moderately
dense understory is dominated by Acer saccharum, Aesculus flava, and Acer pensylvanicum.
Fagus grandifolia, Carya cordiformis, and Hamamelis virginiana occur in smaller numbers.
Shrubs are sparse and limited to Hydrangea arborescens and Rhododendron maximum. The
dense, diverse herb layer is heavily dominated by Meehania cordata in many areas. Also
abundant are Asarum canadense, Stellaria sp., Laportea canadensis, Aster chlorolepis, Osmorhiza
sp., Polystichum acrostichoides, Solidago sp., Hydrophyllum canadense, and Aconitum
reclinatum. Other, less frequent, species include Actaea pachypoda, Cimicifuga racemosa,
Platanthera orbiculata, Impatiens sp., Thalictrum clavatum, Angelica triquinata, Collinsonia
canadensis, Polygonatum pubescens, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Deparia acrostichoides,
Dryopteris goldiana, Arabis laevigata, Dryopteris marginalis, Carex platyphylla?, Dryopteris
intermedia, and Hepatica acutiloba. The vine Aristolochia macrophylla is occasional.
4
LANDSCAPE POSITION AND RELATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES: Present in the
lower to middle-elevation portions of the larger coves on the tract, notably along Road I a.
Grades to mostly to Northern Hardwood Forest upslope.
QUALITY AND CONDITION: Very good quality and condition. Mean canopy dbh's range
between 12-16 inches.
SIZE: Rough estimate of 90 acres in primary cove areas below about 3800 feet in elevation.
COMMUNITY NAME: Northern Hardwood Forest (Rich Subtype)
STRUCTURE, STRATAL DOMINANTS AND OTHER SPECIES PRESENT: Closed
canopy dominated by Acer saccharum, Quercus rubra, Fagus grandifolia, and less Aesculus
flava, Tilia heterophylla, Prunus serotina, Magnolia acuminata, Liriodendron tulipifera, and
Fraxinus americana than in the areas supporting Rich Cove Forest. The moderately dense
understory supports mainly species of the canopy, as well as Acer pensylvanicum and Acer
spicatum. Shrubs are sparse in most areas, though occasional Rhododendron maximum and
Viburnum lantanoides are present. Present in these forests are species such as Aster chlorolepis,
Aster cordifolius, Platnthera peramoena, Angelica triquinata, Huperzia lucidula, Maianthemum
canadense, Maianthemum racemosum, Polygonatum pubescens, Ageratina altissima, Thelypteris
noveboracensis, Dryopteris intermedia, and others.
LANDSCAPE POSITION AND RELATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES: Occupies
areas above well-defined coves and Rich Cove Forests on middle to upper slopes, where slopes
become more open and less protected. Grades toward oak-hickory forest on drier spur ridges.
QUALITY AND CONDITION: Very similar to the examples of Rich Cove Forest, but with
lower overall species diversity and position on higher, more exposed slopes. Mean canopy dbh's
range between 12-16 inches.
SIZE: Rough estimate of 400 acres in areas above about 3800 feet in elevation above primary
cove areas.
COMMUNITY NAME: Rich Montane Seep
STRUCTURE, STRATAL DOMINANTS AND OTHER SPECIES PRESENT: The seeps
are herb-dominated areas along slight drainages (frequently, but not always, where slopes are less
steep). They generally occur along parts of drainages that are slightly more level, where fans of
muck or gravel have accumulated and hydrology is palustrine. Dominants species in the series of
seeps seen in various areas include Laportea canadensis, Glyceria melicaria, Thalictrum
clavatum, Rudbeckia laciniata, Chelone lyonii, Carex sp., Saxifraga micranthidifolia. Monarda
didyma and Trautvetteria caroliniensis occur in one of the seeps. Aconitum reclinatum occurs in,
or above and below several of these communities, though is also widespread in other moist
habitats (slopes, small streams) which are moist but not saturated.
LANDSCAPE POSITION AND RELATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES: Located
mostly above 3800 feet in elevation, on middle slopes above steep-sided cove areas.
Collectively, the seeps function in water retention and microclimate control for northern
hardwood areas surrounding them.
QUALITY AND CONDITION: Good. Most of the examples well-defined, but only a few feet
wide. They vary in length from 10-20 feet to 50 feet long. Five to ten examples were seen.
5
SIZE: Collectively, probably less than one acre.
COMMUNITY NAME: Montane Cliff (Mafic Subtype)
STRUCTURE, STRATAL DOMINANTS AND OTHER SPECIES PRESENT: The cliff
area consists of about three drops of 10-15 feet. The line of cliffs is perhaps 50-100 feet long.
The cliffs are shaded by the surrounding forest canopy, creating only a slight break in the
canopy. Cover is very sparse on most of the vertical to overhanging cliff. Polypodium
appalachianum, Asplenium trichomanes, and (near the cliff base) occasional species from the
surrounding forest. The lichen Umbilicaria mammulata is common in some areas.
LANDSCAPE POSITION AND RELATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES: Middle slope
position. Located at the end of a small, middle-elevation ridgetop a short distance southwest
from the waterfall/cascade area. Grades below and laterally to Rich Cove Forest and above to
drier, oak-dominated forests.
QUALITY AND CONDITION: Good quality and condition, but the example is somewhat
small.
SIZE: A fraction of an acre.
OTHER NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENT: Areas transitional between Northern
Hardwood Forest and either Montane Oak-Hickory Forest or High Elevation Red Oak Forest
occur on a few spur ridges above coves. These were not studied closely, but they vary from fair
quality (areas showing signs of more recent selective logging) to good quality (more intact
examples). A small High Elevation Rocky Summit community, with Huperzia appalachiana,
occurs just off the northwest corner of the tract on another owner's land.
SITE ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY: Very good at present. No recent perterbation has
occurred. Sediment impacts on drainages from roadbuilding on the tract several years ago are not
extensive. The intact forest canopy supports forest interior species such as pileated woodpeckers.
Black bear signs are indicative of a lack of frequent visitation by humans. The proximity of
large, unfragmented areas in the vicinity enhances site integrity considerably.
AVERAGE DBH OF CANOPY TREES: Mature second growth forest. Most trees within 12-
16 inch dbh range. A few fairly small areas along ridgetops (e.g., along Road 3, at the end of
Road 2, especially on ridgetops) support younger second growth forest.
MAXIMUM DBH OF CANOPY TREES: Occasional trees to 24 inch dbh are present,
especially in moist coves.
DISTURBANCE-SENSITIVE SPECIES: Aconitum reclinatum and (presumably) Pyrola
elliptica are sensitive to changes in light intensity and decreases in soil moisture conditions, such
as occurs with removal of tree canopies. Meehania cordata also prefers the moist soils and
filtered light of forested coves, though it can persist in sunnier, warmer, drier conditions after
logging. Black bears are sensitive to human incursion and aggravation from dogs: bears may be
expected to frequent the area less in the future. A large number of plant species of moist coves
and slopes may not persist after substantial removal of tree canopy cover.
FIRE REGIME: Very infrequent. No sign of fire noted. Fires are typically single-tree fires
6
from lightning strikes.
ANIMAL HABITAT FACTORS
HABITAT HETEROGENEITY: Fairly high. Seepages, small streams, and mesic forests.
AMPHIBIAN BREEDING SITES: None noted. A few species of salamanders are almost
certainly present. Good potential exists for the uncommon pygmy salamander (Desmognathus
wrighti), which is known from other areas in Long Hope Valley.
DENNING SITES: No active dens noted, though potential denning sites are present.
BIG TREES/LARGE CAVITIES: Occasional.
SNAGS AND LOGS: Occasional throughout. Especially frequent in some steeper cove areas.
MAST PRODUCING SPECIES: Red oaks, hickories, beeches.
NECTAR SOURCES: Not noted.
PRESENCE OF WATER: Several intermittent drainages. The stream through the primary
cove is a first order stream.
RARE, UNCOMMON, OR INDICATOR SPECIES
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PRESENT:
Pyrola elliptica. State Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered. Until 1998, the species
was known in North Carolina only from a vague 1970 record from "... west side of Long Hope
Creek Valley, elevation about 4500 feet". In 1998, populations were found at three locations in
Ashe County, one of which is on the Barry tract. The identity of all subpopulations was verified
through comparison with fruiting specimens of Pyrola elliptica from Phoenix Mountain, Ashe
County. This species ranges across Canada and south in eastern North America to West Virginia
and Iowa. The North Carolina populations are disjunct from (and possibly genetically distinct
from) the next nearest populations in West Virginia, making their conservation especially
important. _
The population on the Barry tract consists of three subpopulations (see attached map).
Subpopulation 1: A few patches -in an area 10 x 10 feet, totalling about 100 basal rosettes of
leaves, within 20 feet from edge of road up cove (Road 1 a) and about halfway between the point
where the road crosses the streambed (culvert not present) and the large culvert at the top of the
cove. Seen on 17 September 1998. Not relocated in 1999, but presumed extant.
Subpopulation 2: Patches totalling about 50 rosettes of leaves within a 5 x 10 foot area, at a
point where the cove bottom levels and within 50 feet-above the large culvert at the top of the
steep part of the road. The plants are located in a narrow strip of moist ground, on the south side
of the Road 1 a, at a point between the road and the stream.through the cove. The area is well-
marked with orange flagging and is visible from the road. The owner was shown this location.
This Subpopulation 2 is within 0.1 mile above Subpopulation 1. Found on 15 October 1999.
Subpopulation 3: About 20 rosettes found on 15 October 1999. Located on the north side of a
7
slight drainage, within 20 feet of the stream. An old, very faint logging road crosses the drainage
within 50 feet below the subpopulation. The subpopulation was outlined with several pieces of
orange flagging. The drainage which the plants are located near originates in a small Rich
Montane Seep community located just below the junction of Roads lb, Road 8, and Road 4.
Aconitum reclinatum. Considered significantly rare by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program.
Reaching its greatest abundance in North Carolina in the northern mountains of Avery, Watauga,
and Ashe counties; less frequent in mountains south of Asheville. Associated with nutrient-rich
rock types. It is abundant on the tract, occupying seepages, streams, and moist cove slopes above
3400 feet in elevation. Primary concentrations of plants are shown on the attached map and were
marked on the tract with orange, ink-labelled flagging at points where roads cross drainages with
concentrations of plants. The species is probably sparsely- distributed elsewhere on the tract,
where soils are moist and where slopes are (even slightly) concave. The species is endemic to
the Central and Southern Appalachians, ranging from southern Pennsylvania to western North
Carolina.
Meehania cordata. Considered significantly rare by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program. In
North Carolina, the largest populations occur on nutrient-rich rock types, mostly in Watauga and
Ashe counties. Meehania is a dominant species in the herb layer, covering several acres in coves
and moist slopes in the lower half of the tract (below about 3800 feet in elevation). The known
distribution on the tract is shown on attached map. The species is endemic to the Central and
Southern Appalachians, ranging from southwestem.Pennsylvania to western North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee.
Huperzia appalachiana. Not located on the tract, but present in small High Elevation Rocky
Summit community on a knob located just off the tract at the end of Road 7. This small
population, consisting of about 15 clumps of stems, was seen on 18 September 1998. Part of the
rock outcrop area is trampled, but all of the plants are located below the trampled area. This
habitat is sensitive to trampling. The species, a State Candidate for listing, is restricted to high
elevation rock outcrops in the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina.
POTENTIAL FOR OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Good potential for rare orchids,
dwarf ginseng (Panax trifolius), and potentially many others known from forests in the Long
Hope Valley site. Very high potential for additional subpopulations of elliptic shinleaf (Pyrola
elliptica).
OTHER NOTEWORTHY SPECIES OR FEATURES PRESENT: Very rich soils with high
levels of organic matter. A population of Goldie's woodfern (Dryopteris goldiana), a Watch List
species that was formerly "significantly rare" on the Natural Heritage Program's rare plant list, is
present in the cove below the "waterfall". Now known to be more common than once thought in
southwest North Carolina, this plant is nonetheless quite uncommon in the northern North
Carolina mountains. About 25 plants were noted.
OTHER DISTURBANCES OR IMPACTS
8
LOGGING: Most of the area has not been logged in recent years. Some cutting associated with
road construction is evident. An several-acre area just west of the entrance to the tract was
logged in 1999; this area is proposed as a location for a caretaker's residence. An area of young,
second growth forest lies just northwest of the entrance bridge, on lower slopes before Road 1 a
begins to ascend the cove. Some ridgetop areas between Road la and the east end of Road 2
have been logged in perhaps the last 20 years and are now successional.
FARMING: No evidence.
DITCHES: No ditches have been constructed, though culverts have been installed in several
locations along the road system.
ROADS: As shown on the attached map. ,
ALTERED FLOOD REGIME: N/A.
EXOTIC/WEEDY SPECIES: The invasive, non-native coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) is present
in wet areas along roads. It should not be expected to invade areas with an intact forest canopy.
Several other species of weedy native plant species are also present in roadbeds (Trifolium sp.,
Ambrosia sp., Rubus phoenicolasius?, Fragaria virginiana, etc.).
UNDERSTORY CLEARING: No recent clearing other than along roads.
DIRECT HUMAN INTRUSION: Infrequent at present.
LANDSCAPE FACTORS
BOUNDARY INTEGRITY/SHAPE: Although the tract is bordered on the north and south by
cleared areas, these do not pose a threat to the integrity of the site, as long it remains heavily
forested. Ruderal and non-native plant species of early successional habitats (i.e., clearings,
pastures) should be expected to invade from surrounding areas in parts of the development where
large clearings are made. The integrity of the site is greatly enhanced by the proximity of
extensive forested lands in the surrounding landscape.
ADJACENT LAND USE/OFFSITE STRESSES: A large Christmas tree farm borders on the
south and southwest. Whether pesticides applied to the Christmas trees constitutes a stress is not
known. Logged areas exist on the north.
RELATION/CONNECTION TO OTHER SITES: The tract is in the Amphibolite Mountains
Macrosite as well as part of the Long Hope Valley site, which extends mainly to the west and
south of the tract. Three Top Mountain lies about 2.5 air miles to the north-northeast. Bluff
Mountain lies about 2.5 air miles to the northeast.
DEGREE OF THREAT/POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE: Degree of threat to the ecosystems
and rare species present could vary greatly, depending on the extent of clearing in the tract.
SITE DESIGN, PROTECTION, AND MANAGMENT
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundaries a`re those of the Barry tract.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION: Given plans to develop the tract, a
conservation easement agreement is the best form of protection. Development, if done carefully,
can be compatible with maintaining the significant natural features of the area.
9
No new roads should be constructed and existing roads should not be widened. Canopy trees
near roads should be left standing wherever possible. This is especially important along Road
la, where two of the three locations for Pyrola elliptica occur within 20 feet of the road edge.
Houses and access drives should be designed to minimize opening of the forest canopy and to
avoid (even slight) drainages and seepage areas. Non-persistent species of soil-stabilizing plants
should be used for erosion control around house sites. Annual ryegrass will stabilize soils
quickly, without forming a perennial turf which precludes native plants.
In general, the best ways to protect the quality of the rare plant species that are present-are 1)
retain an intact forest canopy around rare plant concentrations to maintain suitable ecological
microconditions and 2) maintain the hydrology of (even slight) natural drainages and seepage
areas through careful placement of culverts, swales, and ditches.
The owner mentioned a desire to use an area above the "waterfall" as a low-impact recreation
area, with walking trails for children and others but also a concern that such trails might affect
rare plant species. The area indicated, which lies between Road 3 and the "waterfall" supports
Meehania cordata and (nearer the stream) small numbers of Aconitum reclinatum. Such trails
could be compatible with rare species protection if they are kept narrow, routed to avoid plants as
much as possible, and if they avoid sensitive areas along the stream. The Meehania cordata
would probably not be at serious risk, given its density and ability to spread vegetatively. Trails
should be created by use, rather than by application of thick layers of gravel or mulch.
An adjacent commons area for picnicking and a trout pond is also proposed. Most of the area
has been logged more recently than most of the tract and appears to be as suitable as any for such
uses. This commons area should be restricted to areas of younger forest. The proposed location
for the trout pond, in the headwater area of the stream that flows to the "waterfall", appears to be
generally suitable for such use although some Meehania cordata would probably be destroyed by
the lower end of the pond. Provided that large concentrations of Meehania cordata are protected
elsewhere in the tract, impacts from pond construction would be slight to the population as a
whole. Project overseer Russell Weil mentioned that in order to construct the pond, part of the
adjacent Woodard tract would need to be purchased.
In meeting with Russell Weil, it was mentioned that the area containing a small High Elevation
Rocky Summit community (on a knob just off the northwest corner of the tract) might be made
foot-accessible to residents of the development for views, through agreement with an adjacent
landowner. The High Elevation Rocky Summit community and Huperzia appalachiana it
supports is sensitive to foot traffic. The best way to protect the area is to restrict access to the
very top of the outcrop, which is already trampled substantially. The Huperzia appalachiana
grows on surfaces below the trampled area.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The areas containing concentrations of
Aconitum reclinatum and Meehania cordata (and especially those near the three subpopulations
10
of Pyrola elliptica) should remain forested and essentially undisturbed. The proposed commons
area (as shown on the attached map) is suitable for greater levels of human use, since it supports
younger, more recently-disturbed forests. Periodic monitoring for invasive, non-native plant
species is recommended. Monitoring of areas supporting concentrations of rare plant species is
recommended. Periodic monitoring of the High Elevation Rocky Summit community for
trampling impacts, if it is made accessible, would be needed.
NEED FOR FURTHER STUDY: Additional locations for Pyrola elliptica are likely and
should be sought. The species is easily overlooked and seems to occur in small, widely-
separated patches. Several other rare plant species may be present in this rich area.
Wo-
-nee
M
'A Tie, 3 fW-1461 r0l I flIvripfl-I
UPIMINT-4 10-

ate,,.-a-
OL P £
. °C
40 W
4n
' o
? o
l y -
, 146
y k? ?
S?3
Ashe County, NC GIS Page 1 of I
Ashe County, NC GIS
Locate parcel by
ICAL.DWELL
Owner's Name (Last, First)
Exit
--- Reec Booh-._.-....J ?P?atB?c _.._? ?Acres?
ICALD WE L, ANNIE -- --
- ? 01 _-3_
? [?d-Pg•--
-J
... Bc. P7. -?
-
CALDWELL, BAXTER -- --? --
1440 38 - - _
__
2. ?7 2 B?Tcg_ ? C2
L , BAXTER -
----- ---- ---- - - 144=?
67 :B c_214 Pg. 762 Bic.Pg.
LDW., , .ANDI E
- _. A
LL, BIER
L JZ)Y 4159-037-03 4 k. 224 . B . 3 . g. 7
ICALDWELL, E JOYCE A 04 - 5 -- --37-__ 3_ c. 17 Pg. 2 1 B . 3 g. 7 1.
L NR .. ATRI I --] 113194-305 B c. 232 Pg. 115 B . Pg.
A D HENRY T A D 13155-.....51
L?`ALDWELL, HENRYS P TRI :I. D

LbVVEI L, 1$A T 12:- - --- - =
ICALDWELL, 3 BAXTER.
i
?AELL, J?AITER
1
13194 -367
Vl4409 62. q3 ,
'14408-050
t:
114408-01

B c. 225 Pg l 51
(Blc:173-Pb 2 ? I
Q1;.. 171 P?J. 1?fi2

189-7g.

Pg.
L c g: 1
.Bk: p I

g.--- l

15.191
80.6
q.7 -

?l l _75?
ICALDWEEL, JBX?I`ER _ 144 8-114 _I B .172-Pg_-1 _2 B c. g._::I
.6---1
F
ICALDW LL, J A T R ?UI?E ? O??08 -_ 3 - _ 01 B . 1 1 Pg. -1 76 c. FIVE - Pg.
-D , J BAXTER .-L I E --
--- -------- ---- ---
- - 3 - 2
- .18-1 Pg. 1_76 . c_ FIVE g. 1
?- =.l
.
.
(? D EL?JBA5M'REIl0Lf?T 03 -9 -630-663-? Clc._ 1 S -115'g. 1.976] PY.-F-I E E(:g -- -1
-
? T-..
CALDWEL TB XTER?c L6t11SE Ci i 63 ? T13. .lf P l?f7? B . F-?! - Pg _. _ .?
WEI?L,JBAkTER'i LOIJIr 1 ?3083?00 41 L I.
?LD ELL, J BAXTER LOtJITE G 1 (03?88=03 6 BT _1$1 Pg_1 76 F. V Pg.
A L, BA T R L E 3088- 3- 07
--- Bbl 1 Pg.-1.7
- B. F E Pg.
g 1_-
n

http://www.webgis.net/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=AsheP]us 1 & 11/10/99
Ashe County, NC GIS Page 1 of 1
Ashe County, NC GIS
Locate parcel by
Owner's Name (:Last, First) Exit
caner --- ------ - 1(Patcel ---.. ?
1
[C?A?D1?4?EL? 1 BAXTER & LOt?ISF G?[03088 030 008] Dezd Book i
[ 1
[9k. 181 Pg 197fi? - -
1P1at BoK _ ??Acres?
[B cl-FIVE Pa 4?[1._
[Cf1LbVVILL J BAST ER & T OUIS1? 61[03088-030 0091 P3k. 181 Pg. 197C? ?B1. FIVE Pg -l?rl
1CALDWE-L, J BAXTER & LOUISE GIj03088 030 Ofq [8k. 181 Pg. I976] [M- FIVE Pg 4111
_
LCALD?E?? J BAXTER L OLIVE G1?63088 D30 011]
- - -- [B 1c. 1? 1 P I ?7?1 -
[B?C FIVE Pg r1. 1
?ALD?'ELI., ,f BAXTER c LOtJISE GI?L03088 030-0121
? M. 181 Pb 1970j B-k FIVE Pg 4
ALDWEIL? J?AXTLR I
OtTISE G?[a3088 030013 [Bk_ 181 Pg. 19761I B--. FIVE Pb X111.
?.LIr;1 BITER & LOUPE G??f3088-03-0141
- CBIc. 181 Pg. 197 ? B c FIVE Pg 41
FCALbWELL, ,I
B? TER LOUISEG??03??8-030-015? LBk 181 Pg 19Tq [>cl-FIVE
Pg 4[[l

LDttTL.L, ,I BAXTER d LOCJISE G?03088-03(O1?
?Bk. 181 Pa 19-7Z .
_
?k FIVE Pg 4j? . 1
DV LL,J BAXTER LO?JI ??[030?8 03? 7? [Bk. 181 Pg
19761(
8 FI E Pg 41?- 1
LCALDWELL, J BAXTER &_LOUISE G?I030ff--U Og
- g
LBk. 18] P 19761[ BcT-FIVE Pg. 4?L1.
?AL
DW LL, J BAXTER ?OUI?E G[ 308.8 3 9
-- B 181 I'g. 19
- ??c FIDE Pg 4?L1
L.DWEL:, J B. .XT:ER > L IJISEq??3088- 30-020 ?k:_ 181
Pg. 1?7 Bc1-F.IV:E Pg. L --1
ALDWELL; J B-- 'TER ISE?i (3 88 30 021
-
` -
1 181 Pg 19
7-6 LB FIVE Pg. 1.

1
FALD
ELL, J BIB I EIZ & LOIJISE Crl[03088-n30 022?[ Blc. 181 1'g 1970 3k FIVE P 4?[
(C?LD?? EL L, i B?kTER & LOUIS- G)103088-030 0231[
' Bk. 18!Pg. 1976
l[ Bk-.FTVE Pg 4 I .

[CALDWE.I..I , ,1 BAX TER c?
I 01J1SF G0088 43-0---02411
13k. 181 Pb 1976 -
P-Y HIVE Pg 4111. --1
1CALDW-LI , J BAXTER & LOUISE 6'03088-030-025i Bk. 181 Pg. 19761 B1:. FIVE Pg I
.
J BAXTER & LOUSE G103-089-0301-0261
--
- 8k. 181 P . 19761[ Bk. FIVE Pg 411.-- j
?D` EL-., .1 BA
XTER,& I
UISL G?[03088.030-7271[ n. 181 Pg. 1976111 8-k. FIVE P 1jl.. 1
€ S ?1likj41?Q'l. ?,t
http://www.webgis.net/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=AshePlus I&
11/10/99
Page
Ashe County, NC GIS 1 of 1
Ashe County, NC GIS
Locate parcel by
CALDWELL
Owner's Name (Last, First) Exit
caner - ; Parcel---- _ ?L Deec?Boo_
? P at Boo cI- cres
1
LOUISE G
CALDWELL, J BAXTER & 6
30-0-99-03
- - l _
Bk. 181 Pg 1976
Bk. FIVE Pg. 4
FL-
7 BATELOM

LDWE _L, J BAXTER & L UI E

R:4425-213 0 73
1_4_1?Pg.
B c. 1 Pg. 3
K. Pg. -_?
B i. Pg.-.----I
[7.217
7..
?E 11X T E & LO II E> J _..-..._x......-..._-83 c. 15 Pg. 1 c. g. 5 .5
TER T AL 1 375-044 1.46 Pg. ?. Pg. _
T R T L) 1 404-00 13 P-r. 7 c. Pg. 59?
W L.L, . XT ?R (ET AI.) -- =- - 1.4 002 - - Bk. 13 Pg. Pg•
15 =- ,_jAMES W* & FAYE C T ?
?CAMWErLCE, SAY B XTER & LO-UI E '1 I 13 1. 05 _
14412.17 ? L-lc. T_-7Pg.?51f5
1; 23 )
Pg
5 -
B_3 Pg'
? I -Pg. ? ___ _I
? ?3?
c_ONA- =
1I;Ll?; Jr- S E (05357 612 -
-
I:
Pg.
_
C MET-_,_ __E ONA .
1A-5 Pg. 051_l P'k.-Pg•
---
LL, J. 053 1- 1 J L k. 131 Pg_ 1821. ?c1?Pg. 14.2 _
Al 9
L , J NA
-
053_..1__..6 ?
CB-. 131 Pg:.-- 21
pg_.--?
3 5
----
?
L, J K ?01361-125? 1 k.:73 Pg.
-
? R ?
?C?ALDWI 1?L . fG. N RILE' ?013 -103 ? B c._161 Pg. ?
g. 17- ? 9_ -- ?
Bk. -g--- ?
AL) SELL; JO?EPI INB?HEIR ??I?T 1 01365.1-53 1 [13k. 121 Pg 0524 :Bk. Pg. 37.13
?
L W LL, 1 N:D R L1361-649 ? CBk. 1 ?6Pg. 1815 Bk Pg. -- - ? A
--
rCALLI7? , LL ?-REEDY _ 440 -6 ? ?B 227 Pg. c.-_ lg_ jJ .",-J

http://www.webgis.net/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=AshePlusI & 11/10/99
IBLIBINIC.
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
HEADWATERS DAM
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Headwaters, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Asheville, North Carolina
September 6, 2000
BLE Project Number J99-1661-01
J 3INC.
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
September 6, 2000
Headwaters, LLC
500 Hermitage Court
Charlotte, NC 28207
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration & Design Analysis
Headwaters Dam
Ashe County, North Carolina
BLE Job Number J99-1661-01
Gentlemen:
As authorized by your acceptance of our Proposal Number P99-0615 dated January 10, 2000,
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering has completed a geotechnical exploration for the subject project.
The purpose of this exploration was to develop information about the site and subsurface
conditions and to provide geotechnical and hydraulic design and recommendations for the
proposed construction. This report describes the work performed and presents the results
obtained, along with our geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the
proposed earth dam.
Following is an executive summary that provides a brief overview of the significant geotechnical
issues for this project. The executive summary is provided as a convenience and should not be
relied upon exclusively. Specific geotechnical design parameters with a detailed discussion of
applications and limitations is provided in the body of this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on a review of the criteria set forth in the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2K, Dam Sae we propose a
dam classification of Class A, medium size dam.
Based on the proposed construction at the site and the immediate downstream features along the
stream channel, possible damage due to catastrophic failure of the dam will likely be limited to
low volume roads. For such damage, a low hazard classification or Class A is proposed. While
the surface area and total storage of the impounded water would result in a size classification of a
small dam, the maximum height of the dam will exceed 35 feet and therefore a medium size
classification is proposed.
21 BUSINESS PARK CIRCLE 1200 WOODRUFF ROAD, SUITE B-7
ARDEN, NORTH CAROLINA 28704 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29607
PHONE [phone] PHONE [phone]
FAx [phone] FAx [phone]
_H FF 0141
Geotechnical Exploration Executive Summary September 6, 2000
Headwaters Dam BGE Project No. J99-1661-01
Based on the results of our geotechnical exploration, the proposed site is suitable for construction
of an earthfill embankment dam. Foundation preparation will involve the removal of soft alluvial
soils and loose colluvial soils near the creek channel and replacement with engineered fill. Based
on the boring logs and our experience on similar projects, no more than approximately five to
seven feet of alluvial/colluvial soil overburden is expected to require removal and the limits of
removal will generally be confined to the area surrounding the existing creek channel and the
southern portion of the embankment. The extent of the soil removal should be determined in the
field during construction by the geotechnical engineer.
Based on our field and laboratory testing program and engineering analysis, it is our opinion that
a homogeneous earthfill dam should provide a water impounding structure suitable for the class
of dam involved provided the dam is constructed in accordance with these recommendations. The
dam will require internal drainage provisions to control seepage and to protect the embankment
from piping (internal erosion). Residual and colluvial soils located within the pond location
appear suitable for use as the dam core material as well as the embankment fill with proper
preparation and handling as described in this report.
The current embankment configuration consists of a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope on the
upstream and downstream side of the dam. This slope exhibits satisfactory factors of safety
under static loading conditions as well as seismic loading conditions for an earthquake with a
horizontal component of acceleration of up to 0.08g.
The dam will be equipped with a principal spillway for conveying runoff from storms with a
return period of up to 10 years. Combined with principal spillway flow, the rip rap lined, side
channel emergency spillway will safely convey runoff from storms with a return period of up to
100 years. Overflow elevations for the principal and emergency spillways are set at 3,810 feet
and 3,811 feet respectively.
The principal spillway and outlet structure will consist of a double barrel riser to provide cold
water return to the downstream creek. The inner riser pipe will consist of a 60-inch diameter
aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated metal riser pipe. Surrounding this inner pipe, an 84-
inch diameter aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated metal pipe will force the water to
enter the riser at an elevation of 3,793 feet. The discharge from the principal spillway riser
through the embankment will be via a 36-inch diameter aluminized or bituminous coated
corrugated metal barrel pipe. This pipe will be approximately 200 feet in length and will
discharge at the eastern end of the construction limits below the existing gravel road. It is
recommended that two anti-seep collars be constructed around the outlet pipe and that they be
spaced such that they are located at the one third points along the outlet pipe.
To facilitate drainage of the lake, an 8-inch diameter aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated
metal pipe will be connected to the riser at an invert elevation of 3,780 feet. A slide gate with an
extension to the surface can be operated using a wheel connected to the top of the riser. Boat
access to the riser will be required to operate the valve in the event the lake needs to be drained.
It is recommended that the dam be closely monitored during initial filling of the lake. Frequent
visual observations should be made during this time. It is recommended that observations of the
dam be performed once every two weeks or less (depending on the rate of filling) by the
ii

Geotechnical Exploration Executive Summary
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No. J99-1661-01
geotechnical engineer during the initial filling and at least 3 months after reaching full pond.
Permanent on-site personnel should make more frequent observations, preferably daily but no
less frequent than once every 2 or 3 days during initial filling. A permanent monitoring program
should be developed for use by the on-site groundskeeper.
Sincerely,
Walter J. R&ie. P.E.
Manager Asheville Office
Reaiste d NC 24625
cc: Mr. Russell Weil, Pintail
Mr. Luther Smith, AIA
Mr. Tom Alexander
ENGINEERING
te,?{{{liltllli/l??,I
?.?`o,CH GARS
Q-
_` i SEAL
z 24625
Partir? + r+
SG S GG?ie
J. RAC ?
1011111111H{{{{

William A Mathews, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Registered NC 18375
iii
13LE..
PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................................. . 1
TEST PITS ................................................................................................................................................................. . 2
SOIL TEST BORINGS ................................................................................................................................................. . 2
CORE DRILLING ....................................................................................................................................................... . 3
LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................................................... . 3
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................................................................... . 3
COMPACTION ........................................................................................................................................................... . 3
TRIAxIAL SHEAR ...................................................................................................................................................... . 3
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 4
SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... . 4
AREA GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................... . 4
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... . 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 5
GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
EMBANKMENT DAM .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Geometry ............................................................................................................................................................. . 6
Slope Stability Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... . 6
Seepage Control Measures (Blanket Drain) and Losses ..................................................................................... . 7
Estimated Seepage Losses and Seepage Reduction Measures ............................................................................ . 8
SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
BORROW MATERIAL ................................................................................................................................................. 9
PREPARATION OF BORROW AREA ............................................................................................................................. 9
CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 10
FOUNDATION PREPARATION ................................................................................................................................... 10
EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION AND QUALITY CONTROL ....................................................................................... 10
SLOPE PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................................. 12
CUT SLOPES ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
OUTLET STRUCTURES ........................................................................................................................................ 13
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY .......................................................................................................................................... 13
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY RISER AND OUTLET STRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 14
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION .......................................................... 15
SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 16
LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Iv
ISLE,...
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
PROJECT INFORMATION
The initial project information was gathered during a site meeting on December 9, 1999. In attendance at
the meeting were Mr. Walter Rabe, P.E., of Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Russell Weil, of Pintail
Partners, Luther Smith, AIA, of Luther E. Smith & Associates, representatives from the US Army Corps
of Engineers and the NCDENR, and the two owners of the project. Subsequent project information has
been provided during numerous telephone conversations and additional meetings between Mr. Rabe and
Mr. Weil and Mr. Smith. A topographic survey of the subject site was performed in February-March of
2000 and an electronic copy was provided to our office in June of 2000.
It is proposed to construct an approximately 44 ft high (elevation 3,770 to 3,814 feet) earth dam which
will result in a lake with a surface area of approximately 4.18 acres at the normal pool elevation of 3,810
feet. The dam will extend for a distance of approximately 440 ft between each abutment. It is proposed to
construct the dam with 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes with a 12 ft wide crest. The subject property
lies in a rural section of Ashe County approximately 5'/2 miles north of Todd, North Carolina (Figure 1).
It is proposed to construct the dam with a cross-section incorporating a semi-impervious core and a
blanket drain to intercept and control potential seepage. It is estimated the dam will require approximately
25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of material exclusive of that required for the key and replacement of any
undercut materials. The fill material will reportedly be obtained upstream from the dam within the lake
area.
It is estimated there will be a reliable base flow of about 1 to 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) into the lake.
Losses will include seepage through the dam and foundation soils plus an evaporative loss which is
conservatively estimated at 1 inch per day over the surface area of 4.18 acres.
A 10 ft wide rip rap lined emergency spillway will be constructed on the south side of the dam
embankment with a crest at elevation 3,811 feet. The principal spillway will consist of a 60 inch diameter
riser pipe connected to an outlet pipe which will consist of a 200 foot long 36 inch aluminized or
bituminous coated corrugated metal pipe. Anti-seep collars with an 24 inch projection will be constructed
along the outlet pipe at two locations along the one-third points of the pipe length upstream of the blanket
drain.
FIELD EXPLORATION
General
The site was explored in two phases. Phase one included the excavation of test pits in the proposed dam
and borrow source locations. Based on the results of the test pits, a conventional geotechnical exploration
including soil test borings was recommended. Phase two included soil test borings along the estimated
centerline of the dam. Access to the heavily wooded boring locations along the dam alignment was
accomplished using a track hoe subcontracted and supervised by Mr. Weil. The boring locations were
identified by our Mr. Rabe within the clearing limits provided by Mr. Weil and were attempted to be

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
located as close as possible to the centerline. Boring locations and elevations should be considered
approximate.
Test Pits
Three test pits were excavated in the estimated dam location and several additional test pits were
excavated in the potential borrow source location. A track hoe subcontracted by Mr. Weil was used to
excavate these test pits. These test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 5%2 to 8'/z feet below the
existing ground surface. Deeper excavation in the dam location was not possible for a variety of reasons
including large boulders encountered in colluvial soils, water entering the test pits, and the depth limits of
the track hoe. Deeper inspection in the borrow source location was not performed due to the expected
depth of borrow excavation suggested by Mr. Weil.
Test pit records for the three test pits in the dam location and a single location in the borrow area are
attached. The test pits in the proposed borrow encountered relatively consistent soil and only one tets pit
record is attached. A bulk soil sample was collected of soils brought to the surface by the track hoe at the
location of TP-4. This bulk sample is generally representative of the surficial soils observed in the borrow
location. This bulk sample was transported to the laboratory for testing for use of the soil within the
embankment.
Soil Test Borings
Three soil test borings were made at the site at locations shown on the attached Field Exploration Plan
(Figure 2). The boring locations were selected by Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, and were located in the
field based on the limits of clearing provided by Mr. Weil. The borings were generally located along the
1/3 points along the dam centerline. The elevations indicated on the attached Test Boring Records were
estimated from provided topographic information.
The borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. At assigned
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The
sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional 12 inches
with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance". The penetration
resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil's strength and foundation supporting
capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the
laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify the driller's
field classifications. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil descriptions and penetration
resistances.
Based on the results of the soil test borings, several attempts were made to recover undisturbed soil
samples from the residual soils within the foundation of the proposed embankment. Due to the relatively
stiff and rocky nature of the residual soils, damage to the steel sampling tube occurred and none of these
attempts proved to be successful.
2
,9L INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
Core Drilling
Refusal materials are materials that cannot be penetrated with the soil drilling methods employed.
Refusal, thus indicated, may result from boulders, lenses, ledges or layers of relatively hard rock
underlain by partially weathered rock or residual soil; refusal may also represent the surface of relatively
continuous bedrock. Core drilling procedures are required to penetrate refusal materials and determine
their character and continuity.
Due to the thickness of the weathered rock overlying the refusal materials encountered in the soil test
borings, coring was determined not to be necessary and was not performed for this investigation.
LABORATORY TESTING
Grain Size Distribution
Grain size tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine the particle size distribution
of these materials. After initial drying, the samples were washed over a U. S. standard No. 200 sieve to
remove the fines (particles finer than a No. 200 mesh sieve). The samples were then dried and sieved
through a standard set of nested sieves. The grain size tests were performed on a sample of the residual
foundation soils as well as the soil matrix of the proposed borrow material. The large rock and boulders
observed in the colluvium in the borrow location were removed prior to performing the grain size
analysis. The results are presented as percent finer by weight versus particle size curves on the attached
Grain Size Distribution Test Report.
Compaction
A standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698) was performed on the bulk soil sample collected from
the proposed borrow location to determine the compaction characteristics, including maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content. Test results are presented on the attached Compaction Test sheets.
Triaxial Shear
Consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests with pore pressure measurements were performed on a
sample of the residual soils in the dam foundation as well as the potential borrow soils. Due to damage of
the undisturbed residual soil sample within the shelby tube, the specimen was remolded based on an
estimated unit weight and moisture content obtained from the shelby tube sample. The test on the borrow
soils was performed on the bulk soil sample collected from test pit TP-4. The borrow soils were remolded
to the approximate density and moisture content that will be required during construction based on the
standard Proctor test.
The remolded samples were trimmed into cylinders 2.8 inches in diameter and encased in rubber
membranes. Each was then placed in a compression chamber and confined by all-around water pressure.
An increasing axial load was then applied until the sample failed in shear. The test results are presented in
IRLE NC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
the form of Stress-Strain Curves and Mohr Diagrams on the accompanying Triaxial Compression Test
sheets.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Conditions
The proposed dam will be situated across a creek in a narrow ravine with side slopes ranging from about
2.5:1 to 3.5:1 (H:V). The area is heavily wooded with mature trees and moderate to heavy underbrush
consisting of newer growth trees and rhododendron. A large rock outcropping was noted approximately
40 feet upstream from boring B-1.
Area Geology
The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The bedrock in this region is a
complex crystalline formation that has been faulted and contorted by past tectonic movements. The rock
has weathered to residual soils which form the mantle for the hillsides and hilltops. The typical residual
soil profile in areas not disturbed by erosion or the activities of man consists of clayey soils near the
surface where weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
Quite often, the upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are water-deposited ( alluvial)
materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. These alluvial soils are
usually soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures in excess of their present
overburden. Also, soils from higher elevations slough and slide down the slopes under gravity forces to
form colluvial deposits without sedimentation from water. The colluvial deposits may contain features such
as perched ground water and the planes of weakness on which sliding took place.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined, and there often is a transitional zone, termed
"partially weathered rock," overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for
engineering purposes, as residual material with a standard penetration resistance in excess of 100 blows
per foot (bpf). Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types.
Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even
over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and/or
zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle well above the general bedrock level.
Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface soil conditions in the proposed dam alignment were found to consist of approximately 6
inches of topsoil underlain by colluvial soils containing varying quantities of rock ranging in size from 2
inches to 2 feet. The layer of colluvial soils ranges in thickness from 6 to 17 feet. Underlying the
colluvial soils, residual soils were encountered.
The soil matrix of the colluvial soils generally consisted of very stiff sandy silt and very loose to very
firm silty or clayey sand. Varying amounts of mica were also present within the soils. Due to the
4
ULU..
Report ofGeotechnical Fxploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
presence of rocks within the colluvial soils, the standard penetration resistance values may be inflated and
not indicative of the soil strength. Generally, the thicker deposits of the colluvial soils are within the creek
and on the southern embankment.
Underlying the colluvial soils, the residual soils were encountered. The residual soils generally consisted
of firm to very firm silty sand and stiff sandy silt with varying amounts of mica. The deeper residual soils
in the borings consisted of partially weathered rock and two of the borings encountered auger refusal on
the parent rock. Boring B-1 encountered refusal at 38 feet below the surface and boring B-3 encountered
refusal at 20 feet below the surface. Boring B-2 was advanced to a depth of 45 feet through
approximately 20 feet of partially weathered rock without encountering auger refusal.
Groundwater was encountered in borings B-1, B-2, and B-3 at depths ranging from 3.5 feet to 20 feet
below the surface. Groundwater is likely most influenced by the water level within the creek. Boring B-
2, adjacent to the creek, encountered groundwater at a shallow depth of 3.5 feet. Borings B-1 and B-3,
which are set back from the creek, encountered groundwater at depths of 19.4 and 15.7 feet, respectively.
Groundwater levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in
the water level in adjacent drainage features. Normally, the highest ground-water levels occur in late
winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall.
The subsurface soils in the location of the proposed borrow area also consist of colluvial soils with
varying amounts or rock. The soils matrix within the rock consist of a moderately plastic fine to medium
sandy silt with some clay content. Rocks ranging in size from 2 inches to 2 feet were encountered
throughout the colluvial soils and will need to be screened and removed during construction as described
later in this report.
The above descriptions provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered. The
attached Boring logs and Test Pit Records contain detailed information recorded at each location. These
records represent our interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination of the field
samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries
and the transition between strata may be gradual. It should be noted that the soil conditions will vary
between the boring locations.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our geotechnical exploration, the proposed site is suitable for construction of an
earthfill embankment dam. Foundation preparation will involve the removal of approximately 5 to 7 feet
of alluvial and loose residual soils near the creek channel and replacement with engineered fill meeting
the same requirements as the embankment fill. This procedure will be required along the centerline of the
dam for the key and beneath the entire length of the principal spillway. Based on our field and laboratory
testing program and engineering analysis, it is our opinion that a homogeneous earthfill dam with 2:1
(H:V) slopes upstream and downstream should provide a water impounding structure suitable for the class
of dam involved provided the dam is constructed in accordance with these recommendations. The dam
will require internal drainage provisions to control seepage and protect the embankment from piping. The
U L Ur+c.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
colluvial and residual soils in the proposed borrow source location appear suitable for use as the
embankment fill.
Embankment Dam
Geometry
The proposed design cross section of the dam is illustrated on Figure 3. The figure indicates the
maximum height cross section of the dam used for our seepage and slope stability analyses. The crest
width is 12 feet with side slopes of 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) on both the upstream and downstream faces.
Slope Stability Analyses
The slope stability analyses were performed using SLOPE/W software developed by Geo-Slope
International. Bishop's modified method was used to estimate the factor of safety against slope failure for
the various loading conditions indicated below. The soil strength parameters used in the evaluation were
based on the laboratory test results, published empirical correlations and our experience on similar
projects. The estimated steady state seepage phreatic surface was considered in the slope stability
analyses. The method used for estimating the phreatic surface is discussed in the following section on
Seepage Control Measures.
The maximum height section of the dam was analyzed with respect to slope stability. The section
analyzed is shown on Figure 3 along with the interpreted design soil parameters used for the respective
analyses. The design strength parameters for the embankment soils were developed from triaxial
compression testing of soils collected from the vicinity of the borrow location. Soils excavated from the
borrow location will be used for the bulk of the fill material for the embankment.
The dam was analyzed for steady state seepage considering the water level at the normal pool elevation of
3,810 feet. The analyses were modeled assuming the dam has internal drainage. The slope stability
analyses were performed for three loading conditions:
1. End of construction - reservoir empty - without seismic loading
2. Steady state seepage - reservoir at normal pool elevation - with seismic loading
3. Steady state seepage - reservoir at normal pool elevation - without seismic loading
A horizontal seismic acceleration of 0.08g was used in the slope stability analyses. This seismic load is
based on a 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in 50 years.i
Based on our experience, the most likely type of catastrophic slope failure for these conditions would be a
circular failure arc. The minimum safety factors without earthquake loading generally recommended are
1.25 for end of construction conditions and 1.5 for steady state seepage conditions. For earthquake
loading, the minimum acceptable factor of safety generally recommended is about 1.1. The results of our
stability analyses are contained in the following table:
' Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico by S.T.
Algermissen, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson and B.L. Bender; 1990.
6
IBLE.NC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
Loading Condition
End of Construction
Steady State Seepage
With Seismic Loading
Without Seismic Loading
Minimum Calculated
Factor of Safety
1.9
1.4
1.7
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
The computed minimum factors of safety indicate the dam, if properly constructed, should be sufficiently
safe against a deep-seated rotational failure. Factors of safety may be significantly lower for shallow
seated surficial slides and sloughing that would not jeopardize the integrity of the dam. Adequate
compaction of the side slopes and erosion control measures are critical during and after construction to
minimize the amount of sloughing on the relatively steep embankment slopes.
The recommended design, construction and inspection procedures are critical to the overall performance
of the dam. Unless the recommendations provided in this report are completely and properly
implemented, the dam may not function as intended.
Seepage Control Measures (Blanket Drain) and Losses
Seepage through the dam was modeled with the finite element program SEEP/W developed by Geo-Slope
International. The seepage analysis was performed to determine whether the dam would require internal
drainage and to develop an approximation of pore pressures to use in the slope stability analyses.
Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) values used in the analysis were estimated based on the laboratory
test results and our experience with similar soils in this region. The following table summarizes the
permeability values used for this evaluation.
Soil Type Permeability (cm/sec)
Embankment Fill (a) Vertical: 1x10
Horizontal: 9x10
Foundation Soils 1x10-5
Blanket Drain 1x10-2
(a) Horizontal permeability was assumed to be nine times the vertical
permeability in the embankment soils to account for the fill being
placed and compacted in horizontal lifts.
Because of the relatively steep embankment slopes, the dam must incorporate a blanket drain under the
downstream slope as shown on the section views in Figure 3. It is recommended that the ends of the
blanket drain "feather out' on each abutment. It is recommended that the blanket drain be at least 2.5 to 3
feet thick, except where it feathers out at the abutments. The blanket drain should extend upstream a
minimum of 100 feet from the downstream toe of the dam. The exact dimensions and extent of the
blanket drain will be determined during construction as site conditions become more evident.
7
II M
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
The blanket drain should be constructed of both fine and coarse filter materials as shown by the detail on
Figure 3. Only fine filter material should be used where the blanket is feathered out at the ends. The finer
stone should be wrapped in a non-woven geosynthetic filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent to
prevent infiltration of fine grained soils into the filter.
The blanket drain may terminate on either side of the 36-inch barrel pipe that forms the principal
spillway. It is recommended that the blanket drain include 6-inch minimum diameter perforated pipes
encased in the coarse filter layer to facilitate drainage. It is recommended that these pipes be placed
perpendicular to the dam centerline on each side of the principal spillway outlet pipe. The final 5 feet of
each pipe prior to exiting the dam on the downstream face should be a solid wall pipe. It is recommended
the outlet of the seepage removal pipe discharge at the stream channel below the dam at an elevation
above the normal tailwater elevation so that the seepage discharge can be observed for signs of sediment
transport.
The fine filter material should form an envelope around the coarse filter. The fine filter should be a
minimum of 9 inches thick. The coarse filter should have a minimum thickness of 18 inches. Standard
ASTM materials such as C-33 sand and No. 67 stone should be suitable for use as fine and coarse filter
materials, respectively.
Estimated Seepage Losses and Seepage Reduction Measures
Based on calculations using the design parameters, the total quantity of seepage through the length of the
embankment and through the residual foundation soil is estimated to be less than '/a gallon per minute.
Based on an estimated evaporation loss of 1 inch over the surface area of the lake and our estimated
seepage losses, total losses from the reservoir are estimated below 0.2 cfs which is well below the base
flow of 1 to 2 cfs.
It is recommended that a rolled earth-filled trench (keyway) be constructed through the colluvial soil to
the residual foundation along the bottom and on each abutment of the dam. The purpose of the keyways
will be to limit seepage under the dam and through the abutments, as well as "key" the embankment into
the abutments. The keyway should be located approximately along and parallel to the dam centerline; it
should extend up each abutment and tie-in to residual soils at approximate prepared foundation grade
elevation 3,800 feet near the top of each abutment. It is recommended that the keyway be designed with a
minimum bottom width of 10 feet and side slopes of 2:1 (H:V). It is recommended that the keyway
bottom extend to at least 6 feet below original ground line along the bottom of the dam and approximately
3 feet in both the north and south abutments. The trench might be adjusted (deepened, widened or
possibly narrowed) during construction inspection by the geotechnical engineer, depending on conditions
encountered.
Settlement
During placement of the embankment fill, the foundation soils and lower layers of the fill will begin to
consolidate. Based on our previous experience, the residual soils under the center of the dam will likely
exhibit negligible settlement on the order of less than 1 inch. An additional settlement of about 3 to 4
,B L EINC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
inches could be expected to occur due to consolidation settlement of the embankment soils. The resulting
total settlement is expected to be on the order of 4 to 5 inches. Most of the settlement is expected to occur
during construction.
To compensate for the primary consolidation remaining after the embankment is complete and to allow
for any secondary consolidation, which would occur over a longer period of time, the dam crest may be
cambered or overbuilt in elevation so that it will be relatively level after long term consolidation. It is
recommended that the dam crest have a minimum 6-inch camber or overbuild along the central portion of
the dam. The overbuild may taper down proportionally to fill height over the abutments.
Borrow Material
We estimate that a volume of about 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted soil will be required for
the embankment dam excluding allowances to replace unsuitable soils removed from the foundation and
assuming 2:1 (H:V) design slopes for the embankment. A "shrinkage" factor of about 15 to 18 percent
from in-place borrow volume to compacted volume may increase the required borrow volume to about
30,000 to 35,000 cubic yards exclusive of that required for construction of the keyway. The necessary
removal of large rocks and boulders from the borrow material will further increase the shrinkage factor.
The bulk of the borrow material will come from excavation within the proposed pond area. It should be
expected that excavation of the emergency spillway will be difficult due to the presence of partially
weathered rock. It is our opinion that the partially weathered rock can be removed using heavy excavating
equipment with ripping tools. However, some blasting may be required to expedite removal of the
material and facilitate breaking the partially weathered rock into a size suitable for handling.
Preparation of Borrow Area
Preparation of the borrow area should include the following:
Prior to the start of construction, a spoil area should be designated for stockpiling of topsoil and
surface organic material stripped from the borrow area and the dam footprint.
The borrow area should be cleared, grubbed and stripped. Organic surface litter, root mats, and
topsoil with over 5 percent by weight fibrous organic matter should be removed and wasted in the
spoil area.
The general working area of each designated borrow location should be kept sloped so that the
surface runoff can drain away from the area by gravity; this will prevent localized saturation of
borrow soils.
9
,I t. INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration September 6, 2000
Headwaters Dam BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
CONSTRUCTION
Foundation Preparation
The general recommendations for preparation of the dam foundation are outlined below:
1. In order to work on the soft/loose alluvial soils and properly compact the initial layers of
embankment, the ground-water should be lowered and maintained at least 3 feet below the
original grade. Cofferdams and temporary rerouting of the creek in conjunction with cased sumps
and pumps may be used to assist in removing water from the construction area.
2. The foundation area of the dam should be cleared and stripped of organic litter, root mats and
topsoil with over 5 percent by weight of fibrous organic matter. Large rocks and boulders
protruding from the surface of the stripped area should also be removed form the dam foundation
area. The clearing and stripping should extend at least 30 feet beyond the downstream toe to
allow access and unobstructed observations for excessive seepage and sand boils during reservoir
filling. This material should be wasted in a designated spoil area. In the flood plain, the clearing
and stripping should be done with light tracked equipment to minimize disturbance of the alluvial
foundation soils. Heavy, rubber-tired equipment must not be allowed to rut-up the area.
3. Stripping of the colluvial soils on the abutment of the dam should extend down to firm soils or
partially weathered rock. Close observation of this material should be performed in the field
during stripping. Close visual observation by a geotechnical engineer is recommended to
determine that the depth of unsuitable soil has been removed from the abutment areas and along
the bottom of the dam. As the fill is raised, previously stripped and prepared abutment surfaces
should be scarified to accept the initial fill layers.
4. Any irregular surface features on the abutments should be excavated to form smoother slopes
without abrupt changes. The abutment shaping should extend for the entire width of the dam. The
purpose of the smoothed slopes is to avoid abrupt changes and thus minimize the potential for
differential settlement and cracking in the embankment.
5. In general, the blanket drain should be placed directly on the stripped foundation surface.
However, local humps in the foundation should be excavated and local depressions, occurring
naturally or as a result of undercutting unsuitable soils, should be backfilled with compacted
embankment soils, or compacted fine filter material in the downstream portion of the dam, to
prepare a more even foundation surface for the internal drain.
Embankment Construction and Quality Control
It is recommended that the first few embankment 1 ifts over the subgrade colluvial soil be placed in
relatively thin loose lifts of 4 to 6 inches and compacted with small, light equipment. Heavy, rubber-tired
equipment should not be allowed to rut-up and disturb the stripped alluvial surface. The heavy equipment
also should not be allowed on the surface of the fill over the colluvium until the fill height reaches about 3
to 5 feet.
The colluvial soils identified in the proposed borrow area will provide suitable material for an earth fill
embankment. Rock must be removed or broken up into pieces not greater than 6-inches in dimension for
the outer embankment soils. While the same on site soils described in this report may be used for the core
of the dam as used in the outer embankment construction, rock size should be limited to not more than 3
10
NIUE NC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
inches for the delineated core shown in Figure 3. As mentioned above, thin lifts and light compaction
equipment should be used in construction of the initial layers of the embankment.
The fill compaction criteria for the dam should be based on a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry
density as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698) and compacted at a moisture content of
-1 to +3 percent of optimum. Fill placed on the wet side of optimum provides a slightly less rigid
embankment and thus is able to absorb some movement with less risk of cracking as the foundation soils
adjust to the imposed loads. Additional Proctor testing will be required during construction as the soil
characteristics change across the borrow pit.
Granular filter materials required for the blanket drain can be most effectively compacted with vibratory
equipment. The fine filter materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of the maximum dry
density according to the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557). The filter materials should be placed
carefully to minimize segregation and should be constructed in compacted lifts no greater than 9 inches;
thinner lifts may be required depending on the size of compaction equipment used. The coarse filter layer
should be densified by making 1 to 3 coverages with a 7 to 10-ton vibratory roller, if this size roller can
be operated without causing shear displacements in the underlying soils. More coverages may be required
if a lighter vibratory roller is used. Care should be taken not to break-down or degrade the coarse filter
materials during placement and compaction. The size and type of compaction equipment should be
approved prior to construction.
Great care and close control should be exercised in construction of the internal drainage blanket to
prevent discontinuities and contamination with the fine grained embankment soils or other deleterious
material. During the progress of embankment construction, the embankment surface should be maintained
with sufficient crown to provide positive drainage of runoff away from the blanket drain area. If the top
surface of the drain becomes contaminated with silt from runoff, construction traffic or other sources, the
contaminated material should be removed before placing additional filter material.
The geotechnical engineer should observe the condition of the prepared foundation on which the
engineered fill is to be supported and should be present during the initial filling operations to lend
guidance and observe how well compaction is being achieved in the initial lifts of the embankment. An
engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer should be at the project
to observe placement of each succeeding lift of fill that is placed. A technician should also make the field
density tests necessary to check the degree of compaction and moisture of each 2 foot maximum
accumulation of fill or daily accumulation. It is recommended that a test be made for every 500 cubic
yards of fill. Additional laboratory compaction tests will be required for variations in soil types from the
borrow area to determine their maximum dry density- optimum moisture content relationships.
In addition to the field density tests for percent compaction, we recommend that undisturbed samples of
the compacted embankment material be taken by the technician during placement of fill and returned to
the laboratory for testing in triaxial shear to verify that the design strength parameters are in fact being
obtained in the fill. It is recommended that about two such samples and tests be obtained ultimately with
one early in the filling to test the soils in the deepest part of the embankment. At least one of these
samples should be obtained from the 5 feet embankment zone just above the foundation. Any new or
variable material used as fill should also have triaxial shear tests made to verify that their strengths are
equal to or exceed the design strengths used in the stability calculations.
11
NB L IE NC.
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
The fill soils should be spread in horizontal loose lifts no thicker than about 9 inches (4 to 6 inches in the
initial 3 to 5 feet height of the embankment over the alluvium) prior to compaction. If a specific lift of
soil is too dry to be compacted to the fill compaction criteria, then moisture should be added by
sprinkling. Uniform moisture content of the soil should be obtained by disc plowing the water into the
uncompacted soils. If the moisture content is too high in the borrow soils, the soils should be turned by
disc plowing to provide aeration and drying by exposure to sun and wind action. It may be more
expedient and efficient to adjust the moisture content as necessary in the borrow area prior to placing on
the dam.
Some borrow soils may be sensitive to variation in moisture content during compaction. Construction
should therefore be done during favorable weather so that the fill can be efficiently and adequately dried
(when required) and compacted. Care must also be exercised in the field to assure that no large rock
fragments (greater than about 6 inches) that fail to break down when compacted are placed in the
embankment. Rock fragments larger than 3 inches should not be used in the core soils. Also, clusters of
smaller rock fragments should not be allowed in the embankment fill. If zones of relatively clean sands
are encountered in the borrow area, then more silty or clayey soils should be mixed in with these soils to
provide a gradation similar to other soils placed. Fill construction during freezing weather should be
avoided. The upper crust of soils frozen overnight or during lags in construction must be removed before
placing additional fill.
Start of embankment construction should proceed in strips, parallel to the dam axis, of small enough area
that the contractor can conveniently work during the day. Structural fill should be placed in lifts and
compacted to bring the fill surface about 5 feet above the bearing surface as soon as possible and before
proceeding to the next strip. Adjacent strips should be cut into the preceding fill so that no joints or seams
are left in the embankment. The size of the area that may be effectively worked by this method will
depend on runoff and ground-water conditions, the contractor and on the equipment used.
Fill placement and compaction next to structures (e.g., principal spillway) will require particular care.
Where compaction with light manually guided equipment is necessary, the fill should be placed in loose
lifts no thicker than about 3 inches. Frequent field density tests should be made in these areas to check
that adequate compaction is being achieved.
Control of runoff and ground water will be absolutely necessary for proper installation of the
embankment fill. The general working area of the embankment should be kept as dry as possible by
surrounding with interceptor ridges or ditches outside the toes of the dam to prevent surface runoff from
ponding or crossing the construction area. Whenever the fill surface becomes degraded by rainfall or
smeared by construction traffic, it should be scarified before placing the next lift of fill.
Slope Protection
The borrow soils that will form the embankment will be susceptible to erosion. To minimize erosion from
rainfall and runoff, immediate grassing of the slopes or other provisions to reduce erosion are
recommended. The same is true for any cut slopes at the project.
Riprap or other protective measures will be required for any soil slopes or drainage channels that will be
exposed to significant wave action or moving water. These protective measures should be designed for
12
IRLIE NC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
hydraulic considerations that are outside the scope of this report. However, the following general
comments about riprap protection are offered.
Riprap should be bedded on a minimum 6-inch thick blanket drain designed to prevent the fine grained
soils from eroding through the void spaces of the riprap. In general, well-graded hard rock materials
ranging in size from 3 to 4 inches maximum to coarse sand minimum are satisfactory for bedding beneath
the riprap. The required gradation of the bedding materials should be evaluated after the riprap has been
designed from hydraulic considerations. More than one layer of bedding may be necessary to meet the
filter requirements between the riprap and soils.
Size gradation limits of riprap and some indication of particle shape should be specified as opposed to
weight gradation limits only. The rocks should be somewhat equi-dimensional, hard and durable.
Cut Slopes
It is recommended that any permanent cut slopes, such as may be made adjacent to a side channel
emergency spillway or will be made in the borrow area, be constructed no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) for slopes up to 30 ft high. Any cut slopes higher than 30 ft should be no steeper than
2.5:1 unless further study is done to verify the adequacy of steeper slopes. Cut slopes in partially
weathered rock may be steepened appreciably depending on field observation by the geotechnical
engineer during construction to confirm satisfactory conditions. Cut slopes of 20 feet or higher should be
observed by an engineering geologist to check for unfavorably oriented planes of weakness such as old
jointing planes or shear planes. Slope design should allow for as much flexibility as practical for potential
slope flattening or other remedial action.
Cut slopes should be grassed or otherwise protected against erosion caused by surface runoff. Riprap
protection should be provided at the base of cut slopes that will be exposed to wave action or moving
water. The riprap should be bedded on a minimum 6-inch thick blanket drain designed to prevent the fine
grained residual soils from eroding through the large void spaces of the riprap. The final gradation design
can be checked after the riprap has been designed from hydraulic considerations.
OUTLET STRUCTURES
Outlet structures were sized and designed by McGill Associates, P.A., of Asheville North Carolina.
Supporting drawings (2) and calculations are included in the Appendix of this report.
Emergency Spillway
The emergency spillway will be a side channel spillway located around the southern end of the dam
embankment. The spillway is 10 feet wide with a crest elevation of 3,811 feet. The spillway will be lined
with riprap and is sized to pass a 100 year flood with a maximum water elevation of 3,812 feet leaving
two feet of freeboard to the dam crest. Based on borings B-3, as well as the test pit excavations, much of
the excavation will be in rocky colluvial soils and should generally be excavatible using conventional
earth moving equipment. However, large boulders may be encountered within the colluvial soils which
13
,B L E...
Report of Geotechnica! Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
may present some difficulty in excavation. The spillway exit channel floor will likely encounter similar
materials.
The exit channel of the spillway will require that a 36 inch diameter culvert be installed beneath the
existing road to safely pass the flow to the stream channel. The expected flow velocities in the spillway
during a 100 year flood should not exceed the permissible velocities for the type B rip-rap. However,
some erosion of the channel may occur, particularly near the culvert beneath the gravel road. The amount
of erosion that could be expected is dependent upon the depth and duration of flow. It should be expected
that maintenance to repair erosion will be required following periods of flow over the emergency
spillway.
Principal Spillway Riser and Outlet Structure
The principal spillway and outlet structure will consist of a double barrel riser to provide cold water
return to the downstream creek. The inner riser pipe will consist of a 60-inch diameter aluminized or
bituminous coated corrugated metal riser pipe with an overflow elevation of 3,810 feet. Surrounding this
inner pipe, an 84 inch diameter aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated metal pipe will extend from
elevation 3,811 to elevation 3,793. Flow will enter the annulus between the two pipes at the submerged
elevation of 3,793 feet. The riser has been sized to handle a storm with a return period of 10 years with a
water level at 3,811 feet.
The inner pipe will be anchored to the lake bed using a 10 feet wide, 10 feet long, and 8 feet high concrete
block cast in place around the bottom of the riser and the outlet barrel pipe. This block will provide ballast
to counter buoyant forces within the riser and barrel pipe. The riser pipe, the outlet pipe and the
foundation for the riser should be founded on either partially weathered rock, dense residuum or
engineered fill in order to minimize differential support conditions (that is, these structures should not
bear in the alluvial foundation soils).
The discharge from the principal spillway riser through the embankment will be via a 36 inch diameter
aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated metal barrel pipe. This pipe will be approximately 200 feet
in length and will discharge at the eastern end of the construction limits below the existing gravel road. It
is recommended that two anti-seep collars be constructed around the outlet pipe and that they be spaced
such that they are located at one third points along the outlet pipe above the blanket drain. These collars
should have watertight construction next to the pipe and should project at least 24 inches perpendicular to
the outside of the culvert.
To facilitate drainage of the lake, an 8-inch diameter aluminized or bituminous coated corrugated metal
pipe will be connected to the riser at an invert elevation of 3,780 feet. This pipe will extend to a local
sump. A slide gate with an extension to the surface can be operated using a wheel connected to the top of
the riser. Boat access to the riser will be required to operate the valve in the event the lake needs to be
drained. This pipe should be briefly operated annually to ensure that it maintains its function.
Adequate compaction of soil backfill around the outlet pipes and anti-seep collars will require the use of
lightweight hand controlled vibrating plate compactors. Where compaction with light manually guided
equipment is necessary next to the culvert, the fill should be placed in lifts no thicker than about 3 inches
14

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
when loose. Frequent field density tests should be made in these areas to check that adequate compaction
is being achieved.
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION
It is recommended that the dam be closely monitored during initial filling of the lake. Frequent visual
observations should be made during this time. It is recommended that observations of the dam be
performed once every two weeks or less (depending on the rate of filling) by the geotechnical
engineer during the initial filling and at least 3 months after reaching full pond. Permanent on-site
personnel should make more frequent observations, preferably daily but no less frequent than once
every 2 or 3 days during initial filling. Items to look for in particular are:
¦ sand boils (sand cones) or excessive seepage in the area below the downstream toe of the dam;
¦ excessive settlement or cracking on the crest;
¦ depressions, slumps, slides or tension cracks on the slopes;
¦ seepage emerging high on the downstream slope;
¦ abrupt changes in the seepage rate and/or cloudy seepage emerging from the seepage removal pipes
or from elsewhere.
Observation of any of the above conditions should be immediately reported to Bunnell-Lammons
Engineering for evaluation. As a precaution, the downstream toe area should be left clear and easily
accessible to truck mounted drilling equipment which could be used to quickly install relief wells to
intercept and control seepage if boils and excessive seepage becomes evident. If actual seepage is
considered excessive for maintaining full pond or irrigation demands, then a grouted or slurry wall cutoff
may be necessary. However, it is not expected that excessive seepage will be a problem.
A settlement monitoring program is recommended to obtain field information on settlement after
completion of the dam. It is recommended that three settlement monuments be installed along the
downstream edge of the dam crest. The settlement monuments installed should consist of a one inch
diameter, 5 feet long steel rod concreted in a 5 feet deep, 15-inch diameter hole. The steel rod should be
centered in the concrete.
The monuments should be installed and initial survey elevations taken immediately after the dam is
"topped-out" and before filling of the lake. The monuments should be tied to benchmarks established on
the original ground surface away from the flood plain area and away from any influence of the dam
embankment or lake or other construction. The settlement monument surveys should be taken weekly
during the initial filling of the reservoir and monthly for a minimum of 12 months thereafter, or until a
repeatable trend for no significant movement is confirmed. The settlement data should be analyzed and
interpreted as they are obtained.
Normal operations should also include a program of routine, systematic observations performed at least
once every two months. The observation program should include monitoring the items mentioned
previously as well as looking for signs of erosion, gullying, riprap disturbance, animal holes or other
unusual conditions. Trees and large shrubs should not be permitted to grow on either the embankments or
the abutments. It is envisioned that Headwaters maintenance personnel would perform the bi-monthly
15
,BL INC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Headwaters Dam
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
inspections and monitoring of the settlement monuments. It is recommended that seepage flow from the
outlet end of the seepage removal pipe in the internal drain be visually monitored on the same frequency.
The outflow from the principal spillway should also be observed to identify any murky effluent. The
results of each observation should be documented. It is recommended that follow-up observations be
made by the geotechnical engineer after one year of service.
The above recommended monitoring and instrumentation are intended to be preliminary. At this time,
monitoring instruments such as observation wells and piezometers are not considered necessary for this
dam. However, the need for these or other monitoring instruments may become apparent based on
experience derived by the time the dam construction is completed.
SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
It is recommended that Bunnell-Lammons Engineering be provided the opportunity to make a general
review of any additional foundation or earthwork plans and specifications prepared from the
recommendations presented in this report. We would then suggest any modifications so that our
recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.
LIMITATIONS
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the project
information and data obtained in our exploration as well as our experience on similar projects. The general
subsurface conditions utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of the
subsurface data between the widely spaced borings. Subsurface conditions between the borings may differ.
If the project information is incorrect or the dam location (horizontal or vertical) and/or dimensions are
changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery of any site or
subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data obtained in this exploration should be
reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions for presence of pollutants
in the soil, rock and ground water of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration.
16
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
IV Headwaters Dam
JII
APPENDIX
Site Location Map
Boring Location Plan
Figure of Dam Profile A-A'
Figure of Dam Cross Section B-B'
Figure of Embankment Details

Laboratory Test Procedures
Laboratory Test Results
Field Exploration Procedures
Boring Logs
Test Pit Records
Key to Soil Symbols and Classification

Results of Slope Stability and Seepage Analyses
Drawing of Principal and Emergency Spillway (McGill Associates)
Drawing of Miscellaneous Details (McGill Associates)
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations (McGill Associates)

17
September 6, 2000
BLE Project No: J99-1661-01
.White Mill 80 ;Oki Plicle Spring
609 11
-Dry
Is Sha GreehfiWi , D F,o 657
Moak Mill urea
E4? N, A l? E 601 {
tone Mill fAnOla AFZ
Osceola e:;ga
n Hills ti. 91 ^k?ourr??3! QBarton Crossroad '
75 RAetiM ... S f `X x L ul' _ 21
M Cedar bluff us „Taytnr's Vtalk y Volney
G r ' le Creel
`_ $auu?r???m Sugar Creek r n-Ceve , y sa F r ..
-r; 743 1
/ o Y th of Wilson
133 „? -t-Re-67-
-113
efton; .., y
1370` Pine Creek
ow Gar z Silver-Lake
Vigchester" y Valley 'tNdis f ? Topia
d
. ?.. Gap -z
f . ....... ?? ?C#1 11,% r
? estntit
t aP a {am 541
..y'"" 3
ountain City le
iadeen r?aden atley,8pnngs
Shounst ©VsDOm Fig w
a 1llalrat Grove.
DOE MOUND J4 JILLlJF? ) V Headwaters ekson ?ILU
MAMA 61C'aT .f ?A .4'? reen Valley?
67,
808
16 . 150 `X728
72
ce Po tertowno Wo0dfordg / aldn
163
Reese 42
Obids
Forest-Gr¢ve A?
J QPeona 194 a za^ a as Halls Mills.'
GA!asb aF
Br 'wnV6W _,
orris FSI{erwood E Moretz A I a ;i„ps Gap
?P 4a KellaFblile? °i ar rove Rti7 -- Mul
1 beR
f t_ Pattons Ride .
°Whaley ?Rdmin?e? 32 Bob P Ridge a
Laud Fork Salle Crucis?
in aF
[iigklerty Heights 1 lade
Millers Creeko
'Purfeai
i r 8anrrer Elk foscoe
1 as "Sancv Rat e? R .. -
.? _ e
`6yvigg oc
1526
1339
o
i? ?-M Pa'
{ 4ARple Ri(ge. 1160 268 i s
Grart6'f&fherlNocfnfait; °Cherokee VV oods?Robh ns Gap ` 11 162 ?? ?--?
1159 F. SOn
1188'
ey catpenten ottom F
,
??e 13x7 'Richland
i
,
Chestnut ©ale
a ? s •• ?--- T ; 1514 .: '
?ep Gar; : IcN,Gap
*Hughes,.
lobe n
15 ; s?ha kful
Plwmtiee c r
1810
)os?nore s
e
t ... 181
Thre Mile.. ? Kings Creek
„Q.. . a ? `,*.Tfanquil Hill,
Jonas Ridge s
4 90 Waa?^.? Gap Q?edar Rock.Estates
£ G old•Springs 1328
:-
t__ 41
f -" CharTes?norft a4iMar Park
.-
Collettsv4 ?- a 1 EllencJal? Taylor
svlH A
irle Honey Hi% { L dir,
West Lenoir sa J127
0 mi 5 10 15 20
REFERENCE:
MICROSOFT EXPEDIA STREETS 98
DRAWN: AEH DATE. 08-14-00 FIGURE
SITE LOCATION MAP
MECKED: WJR CAD: HEADWAT-SLM BUNNEyL.LA&VAONS ENORMSEIIIIING. M HEADWATERS DAM
1200 WOODRUFF ROAD SUITE B-7 ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROVED: 108 N0 J99-1-O1 GR %ft , SOUTH CA(i01J
661 NA 29607
PHONE [phone] FAX: [phone]
1
?f

N
k
Q
U
O
N
N
Q
N
W
w
J
m
m
m
O
0O
? 1
darn
Z
IlQ
C O D
SR
oµ

a
°d
Z
F

O

O
Z Z
? F F
Z O z O
Q J ? J
N
o am a z
W
57< z
Z

g ix

a o

CL V)
F

w
m Q N a
.i?
Q F- N

Q
W
Ca
LiJ

m
U
U
O

W WJ
W

f- W
w
Q O

J
In
N
r

}
J J
N
Z

N J
J
?

a w
CL
p 3
m
O
U !n m CCD
Q

GO
M
II
0
U-
0
CL
0
urge
W
C)
M N eh LO
m _
z
Q /

1 11 111 11111 111111111 11111 11111 1111111111 11777
N O pOp 000 to
M M
M M M M M M M
1333 NI NOLLVA313
w
z O
v ?
a
F-
0
W

a
o,
e
M
d
O ?
a
0
w
F-
U-
0
?o
o
?
0
?uj

N W
? Z
?
II c? }
11 ?m
' W

z
N
? N
p
N O Z
m
Ln
in .n
\- tUO €OA
L_. CV
01
N
yz,?
? 3
N
_ NI
a
o
1
€
N
3
O
a0
s
i
O
t0
I
S
1
i
I
3
s
O j
i
i
i
iA
11
LO I
O
€
s
O
a0
O
to
s
/ C)
V W
Uf

z
a < O
°z
/
N WN
7- ?d c a
F 3
O
O

O
/ F- J
f7S N O
CL m C- N
r7-. 71
L € € yl
/ ?
O

N O O m 000
M M M M M
n
M
co
M
!OA
M
to
M pp€s
° f
M
1333 NI NOLLYA313
E
2 ?- o
o s ?
9m < I ( c?i
i ?
P
0 c sj
b?

D
z ? o
° mE
D
w
A
m
:?Iz -F
m O
z
n _
r
Q
r
L

ll?
m N
A?
m
m
m =
0
Z o ?yy
?DZ
z?v
?N
m
a
;
o
> D_
Z
U l
C
A
m
N

N P
l
Q
4
F
G
xl?
RUB..
Laboratory Test Procedures
Natural Moisture Content
The natural moisture content of the bulk sample and residual soils sample was determined in
accordance with ASTM D 2216. The moisture content of the soil is the ratio, expressed as a
percentage, of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the soil particles.
Grain Size Distribution
A grain size test was performed on the bulk soil sample and the residual foundation soil sample to
determine the particle size distribution of these materials. After initial drying, the sample was
washed over a U. S. Standard No. 200 sieve to remove the fines (particles finer than a No. 200 mesh
sieve). The sample was then dried and sieved through a standard set of nested sieves. This test was
performed in a manner similar to that described by ASTM D 422. The results are presented as
percent finer by weight versus particle size curves on the attached Grain Size Distribution sheet.
Soil Plasticity
Atterberg-limits testing was done on the bulk sample as well as the residual soil sample to
determine the soil plasticity characteristics. The Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). These
characteristics are determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The LL is the moisture content at
which the soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The PL is the moisture content at which the soil
begins to lose its plasticity.
Certain soils swell and shrink with increases and decreases in soil moisture. The PI is related to this
potential volume change ability. When such volume changes occur in soils confined beneath
foundations, floor slabs, and pavements, structural deformations can be produced. Past experience
has shown that soils having a PI of less than 30 are only slightly susceptible to volume changes.
Soils having a PI greater than 50 are generally very susceptible to these volume changes. Soils with
a PI between these limits have moderate volume change potential. The soils tested at this site are
considered to have minimal volume change potential.
Compaction
The bulk sample of potential borrow soils from the project site was collected and transported to the
laboratory for compaction testing. A standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698) was
performed on the sample to determine compaction characteristics, including the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content. Test results are presented on the attached Compaction Test
sheet.
ULU..
Unit Weight
In the laboratory, the shelby tube sample of the site residual soils, still in the steel tube, was
measured and weighed to determine gross weight and volume of the sample. The sample was then
extruded from its steel tube and the net weight of the sample was determined for calculation of the
soil wet density in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture content of each specimen was then
determined, and the dry unit weight was calculated. The result of this test is incorporated into the
triaxial test data.
Triaxial Test - with Pore-Pressure Measurements
In the laboratory, a remolded sample obtained from the residual soils in the foundation of the dam
as well as the borrow soil location were tested. Due to damage to the residual soil undisturbed
sample in the shelby tube, an in-situ unit weight and moisture content were estimated from the tube
sample. The sample was then extruded from its steel tube and remolded to this weight and placed in
a tri-axial compression cell. Once the compaction test was performed as described above, the bulk
sample obtained from the borrow location was remolded to approximately 95% of the maximum
dry density obtained from the Proctor test at a moisture content approximately 1% above the
optimum moisture. The remolded sample was then placed in a tri-axial compression cell.
Once saturated, the samples were placed under a normal stress as well as a confining stress to
determine the shear strength parameters of the soil. By measuring pore pressures within the soil,
the total shear strength and the effective shear strength of the soil can be readily estimated. The
results of these tests are presented on the Summary of Laboratory Test Data.
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
94 j

I

92 j

90
U
Q.
C
N
'O
88

86

ZAV f
or
Sp.G. _
84 2.7
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat. % > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G. LL PI No.4 No.200
0-3' 50 12 4.4 73.7
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 90.7 pcf

Optimum moisture = 30.0 %
Yellowish brown tan fine sandy SILT
Project No. J99-1661-01 Client: Headwaters LLC
Project: Headwaters Dam

• Location: TP4 Remarks:
Curve 1
7-19-00
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
Plate
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

60
Z

7

50
1

40
X
W
O
Z_

3
U
F-
U)
g

20

1

10 30 50 70 90 110
LIQUID LIMIT

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Client: Headwaters LLC
BUNNELL-LAMMONS Project: Headwaters Dam
ENGINEERING INC. Pro'ectNo.: J99-1661-01 Plate 2
Dashed line indicates the approximate
?
upper limit boundary for natural soils
O?
o
Go

Ov
o?
G?

?- ? ML o r OL MH o r OH

• 0
0
4
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY USCS
SYMBOL SOURCE NO. (ft.) CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX

• Boring 2 6.0'-8.0' S4 57 3
¦ Test Pit 1 0-3' 38 50 12
P ERC EN T CO AR SER BY WE IGH T

O CZ
N > C
M , C D- C o
(0
0 C )
O
00 C
O >
Z U
j I I O Z
I O
O C
c
i I

? J
b
° ? J
W
F- IL i LLJ
-
0
° W Z
_
Z
° G
r s Z
:c o Z
R M W

J Q y

0
? .0
Y
a

0
Q o
W
cc
?
w J O a
w ,o
CL ?O
z

w
W o
w

J ? W
Z ? IL -+ N
Q .L
o

Z -N Cl
U a)
O
W A
0

W N
?
F" 0 L
co

N
U
?

_ a

U m
Z ? U
(>?

Z

W
" N
x

0
w °i
(1
W Z
? O
ui

O
C)

J _

U) O
W
J
m ?
?
m
O ?
U o,

J
CD ?t z
LO

Cl
(D
c
o
r-

c

o

t

o

I

t

m

N

O
O H f?

41
O
`
11-1 013 M A a 213 1413 114 30U M p ? a
a TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT
(
0 R E ASTM D 4767 )
MAO?E It SC IEft CIS
JOB NAME: Headwaters Dam
JOB NO.: 4778 REPORT NO. - REVIEWED BY : DATE 8/4/00
BORING / PIT NO.: B-1 DEPTH / ELEV.: 6 - 8' SAMPLE NO.: 1 TYPE: Remolded
SAMPLE LOCATION :
SOIL DESCRIPTION : Yellowish Brown Micaceous Sand Silt
LIQUID LIMIT %: - PLASTICITY INDEX %: - FINES, % ; - Gs : 2.90

SPECIMEN PROPERT IES <? 5"?fPEr. =t#I f> ?4€1»P1RIu:
INTIAL AFTER CONSOLIDATION TEST PARAMET ERS
SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3 1 2 3 SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3
DIAMETER, INCHES Do 2.83 2.83 0.00 D, 2.80 2.77 0.00 SACK PRESSURE, KSF Uo 6.5 6.5 0.0
HEIGHT, INCHES Ho 6.00 6.00 0.00 Ho 5.94 5.88 0.00 CONFING PRESSURE. KSF G3 3.0 6.0 0.0
WATER CONTENT, % W° 52.3 52.3 0.0 Wo 53.5 51.0 0.0 MAX. DEVIATOR STRESS,KSF CTj-G3 6.7 7.7 0.0
DRY DENSITY, PCF Yd o 68.8 68.7 0.0 1d 70.9 73.0 0.0 ULT. DEVIATOR STRESS, KSF Gl-G3 6.7 7.6 0.0
SATURATION,% S. 92.9 92.8 0.0 Sc ioo 100 0 CONTROLLE D
VOID RATIO @0 1.632 1.634 0.000 @0 1.552 1.480 0.000 Strain 0.33

PROCTOR TYPE : Standard MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY PCF - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT % -
REMOLDED specimens were remolded to - % of maximum d densi at about - % wet of o.m.c.
. :?i:•:•:•nva•7.,ti;>v,::,,:>.v..v.\v:.:v:

•v.\avv:n,..u -
• ... ». pnmvw»-..v.,..,--vwv vnvn..vu.:..v:v.,v.,u n, n....,.,.?...?w}.\.:.. . ...v:. :: xn:.:::::::. :a:.,v..:: vxi.. :::-vF .. .-}Y::-.d.,>:..<i•=:},.-.i}.`iyn.::il;:^i^i:
.»A»,,.vvv:w..vnv:. .,:.wv:-...:.vv.,»... .. v?n}vv...::...,:v>} ): v. .:.: v:- •.::i<.}:?:N-}: :> : :Y ..\h:.v:{}: _T_
n>
.:.. w. •,. L•«.u??irt<v?a.:....?J.+:}.%e:•x - %::K.ak:%:o?kk ,:kkYvkv. ?.. ??.,, .'::t a
. - .. } . , „- ' . .....,.. >.}?,>,,;: .,-. v 2%-C.,:- ..:,:v .. ..: "•':):;:ya'C;:,^.%:.'.'irikp',i`: T `:'-'`:y.,':vj? '
2.50
tyre ??y1?.w?,.Y?... +::• ??J:3:-•'?,?{?y[,-'?. ' ?_LM=yr.}???,(y ?{y? 7.8 ?y??1 ???yN?1"vt3 '?>:1"?l.?AU?+?.?w .. N•:..'+;y= ??i.?i?M? '?;-;.`:.:::
C?;???=: v?- .:. F.?!1^. Al?:::??S M.?.. n.. R:?1... ,,..R::R.??':•`.-?-•-..'.4rIJ....:-- is is ?. ?.}!•?.?!YT,......,,.M'.v.?..........?!vt:... .'?"v.`. ?'Y..•M.1!v?
MOHR / p'-q DIAGRAM
7
LL- 6
Y
- 5
C0
W 4
~ 3
Q 2
W
TOTAL STRESSES

EFFECTIVE STRESSES

- - - - - • p-q STRESS PATHS
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
PRINCIPAL STRESS, KSF
STRESS- STRAIN CURVE
101 1 1 1 1 f l

------ SPECIMEN 3
w g
LIJ
SPECIMEN 2
6
N ILL
WW - - SPECIMEN 1

4
Q
•

0 2

O
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
% STRAIN
a TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT
+O R E (ASTM D 4767 )
O f E X 7 S C I E N C F. S
JOB NAME: Headwaters Dam
JOB NO.: 4778 REPORT NO.: - REVIEWED BY : 1?WLU DATE 8/4/00
BORING / PIT NO.: TP - DEPTH / ELEV.: - SAMPLE NO.: 1 TYPE: BULK
SAMPLE LOCATION :
SOIL DESCRIPTION : Yellowish Brown Tan Fine Sand Silt
LIQUID LIMIT % : - PLASTICITY INDEX % : - FINES, % 2.78

SPECIMEN PROPERT IES
INTIAL AFTER CONSOLIDATION TEST PARAMET ERS
SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3 1 2 3 SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3
DIAMETER , INCHES Do 2.82 2.82 2.82 D, 2.79 2.78 2.76 BACK PRESSURE, KSF U. 6.5 6.5 6.5
HEIGHT, INCHES Ho 6.00 6.00 6.00 H, 5.94 5.92 5.87 CONFING PRESSURE, KSF 63 2.5 5.0 7.5
WATER CONTENT, % Wo 31.0 31 31.0 W, 34.2 33.6 31.9 MAX. DEVIATOR STRESS,KSF 61-a3 3.4 5.3 6.7
DRY DENSITY, PCF yd,. 86.2 86-0 86.0 yd,, 88.9 89.7 91.9 ULT. DEVIATOR STRESS, KSF 61-63 3.4 5.3 6.7
SATURATION ;b So 85.1 84.8 84.8 S, 100 100 100 CONTROLLE D
VOID RATIO eo 1.012 1.017 1.017 e. 0.951 0.933 0.888 Strain @ 0.33 %

PROCTOR TYPE : Standard MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY PCF 90.7 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT % 30
REMOLDED Specimens were remolded to 95 % of maximum d dens/ at about 1.0 % wet of o.m.c.
. .. > .: ..l ,,,:..u...i.La.•:,s:.a,:,.:.:?:::eCY're»:;.:. ::: ,.-..,.-,
:x:.?vk-avr.,;:.:;h},v. ...\,,.-.:, •. .n.n,:•. v ) twn „}f?:!v
a>..?.,,.. ,,.v.::. -.,z :• ..'g ...... ,....., .....:.,:..v .a x.:..,....,a..,,,..,:v!.:aa.:i:`..-:ii.::.»:vfik}:.:..,.:..:...,.:vw..v,..k ik?-.^..V.> >2 :51-:':: :Y.•• 6.:}M',,:a*r.'+`:;:kv..i:.,::v.,•-:..:.,::.::::...uav

0.00
.}:t=a:!.rlx??'.:*?S`.,?. :":t:av:,<_s ilii?!??.17'i!Y?}.:>:>.:»>:,v_.?C:iir.->.m,.>...<.• . tea:.: 0{{yy
r•. :.
39.0
MOHR I p'-q DIAGRAM
6
L 5
-
to 4
C

3
H
!r 2
W
Z 1
N
TOTAL STRESSES
EFFECTIVE STRESSES

- - - - - • p -q STRESS PATHS

---•-_.
t - -

??
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
PRINCIPAL STRESS, KSF
STRESS- STRAIN CURVE
10-

? _- SPECIMEN 3
v
8-
N
W _
SPECIMEN 2
6
N LL
ox - - - SPECIMEN 1
F 4
a

2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
% STRAIN
It L EINC.
Field Exploration Procedures
Soil Test Borings
The borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. At
assigned intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I. D., 2-inch O. D., split-tube
sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an
additional 12 inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated the
"penetration resistance." The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the
strength of the soil and foundation supporting capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported
to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify
the field classifications. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil descriptions and
penetration resistance.
Undisturbed Sampling
Split-barrel samples are suitable for visual examination and classification tests but are not
sufficiently intact for quantitative laboratory tests. Therefore, relatively undisturbed samples were
obtained in selected borings by drilling to the desired depth and hydraulically forcing a section of 3-
inch OD, 16-gauge steel tubing into the soil. The sampling procedure is described by ASTM D
1587. Together with the encased soil, each tube was carefully removed from the ground, made
airtight, and transported to the laboratory. The depths of undisturbed samples are shown on the
appropriate Test Boring Records.
131IEL SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-1
PROJECT: Headwaters Dam PROJECT NO.: J99-1661-01
CLIENT: Headwaters, LLC DATE START: 7-19-00 END: 7-19-00
. EPJM M LOCATION: Ashe County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 3794
?" DRILLER: Metro Drill, Inc., T. Reid LOGGED BY: WJR
CONNIIVJfR DRILLING METHOD: Hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 3 HOURS: 1 19.4 CAVING>3W
M
ELEVATION/ DESCRIPTION SOIL ii STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT) TYPE BLOWSIFOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
6-inches of TOPSOIL
Firm, brown and tan, silty, fine SAND - residuum _ _ '_ _; _'_ _ ;
2 19

3790-
-4
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6
Stiff, brown, tan and orange, micaceous, fine sandy SILT
Shelby tube pushed from 6 to 8 feet in companion boring 4-1 10 --'-' - " • " '-
$ with 21-inches of recovery -' "-
3785
? Very firm to dense, brown, tan and orange very micaceous, 29
10 silty, fine SAND - : - -. - . ' -
12 - - -
3780 14 -
35 ,
-------------------
16 - • - " -

-18 ----------------------
33775- - I F PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as brown, 50/5'
20 tan and orange very micaceous, silty, fine SAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22 - - - - -
5WY
3770- -24 0/5.5 - ,- -, - , _. 2 ,
26 - -, ,
28 -
------------------------------------- - - , .0/6
3
3765 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as dark 5016
30 brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT -, - , -; - ;- - ,- ; - ;- . : -: -; -
32
--------
--

3760-
-34 --
-------
- '- ' - ' - ' • ' '
-
-----------------
36 -
- - ' 1
--------------------
38 - -
3755 Auger refusal at 38 feet. Ground water encountered at 19.4
ao feet after 3 hours.
-----------------
42 --------------------
,
3750- -44
- : -, -, -,
46 - -,-, -,-. .

-48 - -
7
i 3745 - -,- -, - ; -,-,- -,- - - - -. ,-.-
i
SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-1
Sheet 1 of 1

RLEL SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-2
PROJECT: Headwaters Dam PROJECT NO.: J99-1661-01

CLIENT: Headwaters, LLC DATE START: 7-18-00 END: 7-18-00
?ER?p? IIJQ LOCATION: Ashe County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 3779
DRILLER: Metro Drill, Inc., T. Reid LOGGED BY: WJR
cCM Nally DRILLING METHOD: Hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS:1 3.5 CAVING>30
N
ELEVATION/ DESCRIPTION SOIL - STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT) TYPE 2 BLOWSIFOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
6-inches of TOPSOIL
Very stiff to hard, orange, brown, black and gray, fine sandy
2 SILT with small rock fragments - (colluvium) 2s - - ; - ; " " ! - - ;- ; " -
' ,- i - -,-, -.- -. - i , W74-
3775 4 Refusal at 5 feet, offset 10 feet west 50W
6 -
70 - . -' - - • ' -
8 -
3770 Firm, gray, orange, tan and brown, silty
fine to medium -
-'- - • -
10 ,
SAND - (residuum) 15 :
_ _ _ _ _ _, _ ; ;
Shelby tube pushed from 9 to 11 feet in companion boring.
12 Tube bent. 4-inches of recovery, sample discarded. .' = • . ;
--------------
3766 14 Firm, gray and tan, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND - - : : - , - :- - :- - :- , , -: -: -
16 0,
-16

18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3760 - - _ - - - -
-
- : - -
-
-
17 .
.
. ,
,
20 - -
22 ______
50
3755- -24 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as gray and 015.5'
tan, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND
z6 -
-28

3750 -
------------------------------------- -
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as dark

015.5' Sols:s-
30 gray and tan, silty, fine SAND
32 -' - '-' - -'-•

3745-
-34 --------------------

-' -'

36 -------------------
- - - , - ' -- i .
38 - - ------- -
3740 - • - , • - • -• - •- - -• - • -
40
42 -

3735
44
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which-sampled as very _ _ _ _
015.5' ;50(5:?•
; ' _ ; _; _ ;_ _ '_ ' _ ;_ ; _, _ _
dark gray
very micaceous
fine sand
SILT
,
,
y
46 Boring terminated at 45 feet. Ground water encountered at - : : - , : - :- - ;- , - :- . , -: -: -
3.5 feet after 24 hours. 2 2
-48
3730
' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1
IR,IIEL SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-3
PROJECT: Headwaters Dam PROJECT NO
: J99-1661-01
.
CLIENT: Headwaters, LLC DATE START: 7-18-00 END: 7-18-00
IIPJ a R@Q LOCATION: Ashe County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 3784
811101 ND DRILLER: Metro Drill, Inc., T. Reid LOGGED BY: WJR
CONNLUXII>t DRILLING METHOD: Hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS:1 15.7 CAVING>3M

ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
DESCRIPTION
SOIL w
a
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
TYPE Q BLOWS/FOOT
y
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
6-inches of TOPSOIL
Firm, brown and black, silty, fine to medium AND with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"' '" "'" "
2 small rock fragments - (colluvium) 1a
3780- -4 Very firm to firm, orange, tan and black, micaceous
clayey - - -
,
,
silty, fine to medium SAND with small rock fragments. 25
6 (colluvium) -------
17
-• • -? -

8 --------------- ----
3775 Very loose, tan, yellow and gray, silty, clayey
fine SAND -
-
-
- - - - - , - - . , - -. -
10 ,
with small rock fragments - (colluvium) a ;
?
;
moist
12 -r -. , - :-. -
3770 14 Firm, dark gray and tan, micaceous
silty
fine SAND with :- -: - ; -:w- - :- - : -: -; -
,
,
rock fragments - (colluvium) 16 -
16 _ :_ _ ;_ _ ;_ : _: _;
--------------------
SD?S"
3765 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as dark
20 gray and tan, micaceous, silty, clayey, fine SAND with small
rock fragments - colluvium/residuum
22 Auger refusal at 20 feet. Ground water encountered at 15.7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
feet after 24 hours. Piezometer set to 20 feet after 24 hours.
3760- -24
26
28
3755 - - - - - - -
30
-32

3750-
-34 --------------------
------------- ---
38 - - -
3745
40
42
------------
3740 44
46 -, .-

48 2 2 2
3735
SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 1 of 1
TEST PIT RECORD
Headwaters Dam
Ashe County, North Carolina
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J99-1661.01
TEST PIT No.: TP-1> (adjacent to boring B-2) Surface Elev. 3,780 ff.: MSL
DATE: December 17, 19.99 LOGGED BY: Will
DEPTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE
FEET F EFT
0
0
. 6 inches of topsoil/humus
Brown and orange clayey fine to medium SAND with cobbles and boulders up to 18 inches
in dimension (colluvium)
2.5
Gray and black, micaceous silty fine SAND (colluvium)
0
5
.
Partially weathered rock which sampled as orange and brown, silty fine to medium SAND
(residuum)
7
5
.
Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet
10.0
1z.s

TEST PIT RECORD
Headwaters Dam
Ashe County, North Carolina
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J99-1661.01
TEST PIT No.: TP 2 (adjacent to boring 6 1) Surface Elev. 3,785 ft. MSL
DATE: December 17, 1999 LOGGED BY: WJR
DEPTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE
FEET F E

0.0 6 inches of topsoil/humus
Reddish-brown and tan, clayey fine to medium SAND with some small rocks (residuum)
2.5
Gray and tan, micaceous silty fine SAND
5.0
7.5
Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet Groundwater not encountered at time of test pit excavation.
10.0
12.5
e..mrr«. aepn
TEST PIT RECORD
Headwaters Dam
Ashe County, North Carolina
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J99-1661-01
TEST PIT No.: TP-3 (adjacent to boring B-3) Surface Elev. 3,784 ft. MSL
DATE: December 17, 1999 LOGGED'BY: WJR
DEPTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE
FEET
0
0
. 6 inches of topsoil/humus
Orange and tan, silty, clayey, fine to medium SAND with rocks up to 12 inches in dimension
/rniluviuml
2.5
Orangish-brown clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND with large amounts of quartz
and amphibolite schist rock fragments from 6 inches to 18 inches in dimension (colluvium)
5.0
Difficult excavating
5 Test Pit terminated at 7 feet. Groundwater not encountered at time of test pit excavation.
Probe rod inserted additional t foot into test pit bottom in several locations
10.0
12.5
M.a..,..-W.
TEST PIT RECORD
Headwaters Dam
Ashe County, North Carolina
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J99-1661-01
TEST PIT No.: TP-4 Surface Elev. 3,840 ft. MSL
DATE: December 17, 1999 LOGGED BY: WJR
DEPTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE
FEET EgFmI

0.0 6 inches of topsoil/humus
Reddish-brown, and tan, silty, fine to medium, sandy CLAY, with large amounts of quartz
and amphibolite schist rock fragments from 6 inches to 12 inches in dimension (colluvium)
2.5
BULK SAMPLE
5.0
Test Pit terminated at 5.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered at time of test pit excavation.
Bulk sample obtained for standard Proctor testing, remolded triaxial testing, and
soil classification testing.
7.5
10.0
12.5
n..e,.r?aurm
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Penetration Resistance* Relative
Blows per Foot Density Particle Size Identification
SANDS Boulder. Greater than 300 mm

0 to 4
Very Loose Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
Gravel:
5 to 10 Loose Coarse - 19 to 75 mm
11 to 20 Firm Fine - 4.75 to 19 mm
21 to 30 Very Firm Sand:
31 to 50 Dense Coarse - 2 to 4.75 mm
over 50 Very Dense Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm
Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mm
Penetration Resistance* Consistency Silt & Clay: Less than 0.075 mm
Blows per Foot
SILTS and CLAYS
0 to 2 Very Soft
3 to 4 Soft
5 to 8 Firm
9 to 15 stiff
16 to 30 Very Stiff
31 to 50 Hard
over 50 Very Hard
*ASTM D 1586
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
17
® Split Spoon Sample Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
•
Undisturbed Sample Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

Topsoil

Sandy Silt
Clayey Sand

Silty Sand
Partially Weathered Rock
Elevation (feet + 3,700)
?` a s s a s a as n it "s s
8
g
S
's
k
k
k
d -n N Z
Q
NyF,flm

m d N MN
?, N T3

?
m
?' ca tny34's
"p<<
c
3
o
m 3?
C-L
e
$3?
d
?p
CL
m q
a
T' co ey Z

N 12! 0

pp p d
d-Z $6
"SZ8 z'a
m Cq
c N 1D
id n
fO °° p asa
3 • 3
T3

dd(] o
N rno
ti G ? p C m
gSdNN
e'Ti ^ SSP.
a d d N
3 ??
?N Q

2
?Q
d C N C d
amA?; /0
? ?

0 3 ?
w o
0

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

0 06a *?4L
f-2-4

i3

'v C17m

s Ld NO N?
x ? ? 0 3

??
271 od r
of

lp
7
CO)
n
S
?0??3
W O m ?
0?3?
?3 T
J N
J_
T
?a
0
t
ns w--
?, IV
?' u+vw
w
(? trrA
[3
All.
--
?.R
Mm
if
M.. CL
NO-
> 3
3
CL
m
N C_
'ZO
C
V+ ?
6
V?1!
Elevation (feet + 3,700)
J
Ea $ c ? ? ?
s
"f C f11 T0C0111
5.3 R(O 63
m A,
w Zy
fi v5 1 rF a/
N
P / _A -

Elevation (feet +3,700)
8
pb
P
u
0
D
R.i
a
o
v
m
O
S7
A
I

wan
S
------------

mg kAo
4
r cp
Om?
-!nm9?
Cs m o tn, at
? ? .Cr G N .?
v
god
4&.
2 g m
Was
L?
•

• • •

a •
•s
'4 ? 2C IT
? Q?. a
it
d
3
fA
bxg y a
Br My gyp,
O V, or a
82
'Y1
Ci 3 :-
Hr.m 3
c;
.mss 3 ?
? N
O
O
N
0
A
0
rn
0
co
0
0
0
N
O
0
rn
0
zo,
0
0
? o
C1.) N
N
? O
(7
(D N
O
6",
CD N
N
w
O '
w
0
0
CA)
N
O
w
A
0
w
rn
0
w
0
0
A
0
0
A
N
O
A
A
O
A
O
O
Elevation (feet + 3,700)
_ .+ N W A C3i
O O O O O O O co O O O C. O _ O O
-n ca m-
0 _ 39
CL CD
c
fn
0 3 t
M =x -ns
?w0 < i
I! W N (D C
CO X O
W --I,= n
O ;
0)
X 1 Sy
_
C)
V II W
CD CO .
0 X W
CD ?< ji
N
0 X CD O
n
N
O 0 ;r
to 3 11 (OD
3 (D N
0 CO X
CD v X O
0 ?
Cn 3
(n cn
CD
n `i
? N N = O CD
0) CA U) (D 3 Cn
n
? fA Cn ? 3 IM CD -0
- i (D CD (D - O
.< C2 i1 .. Cn O
CAD =-1 0 m =W2
Cf) (D 0. M 0)
pp? 0 0
CD
a- W0) CTv
`G Np-i ZCD -11
cnWOO00 ((D
CD 3 ° 3
'!0 0) O CD
CD
6 'Om
? O
CD
N
D o
O 3
X_ CD
C-D
O
CD CD
II
F./
N) N3
CO
c? > w'
"a W
C]. ? N
C2 CD
O ()
g5McGifl
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning - Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 - 828-252-0575 - Fax [phone]
JOB' U&WATEf - AMC 60-
r,.
SHEET NO. ' OF 0-31-00 CALCULATED BY V DATE DESCRIPTION 6fl u'W" caixu 1-A-00 0 5
SCALE PROJECT NO. 0-0 100
13

Table 8.03a
Value of Runoff Coefficient
Land use
c Land Use C
(C) for Rational Formula Business:
Downtown areas Lawns:
0.70-0.95 Sandy soil, flat, 2%
0.05-0.10
Neighborhood areas 0.50-0.70 Sandy soil, ave., 2-7% 0.10-0.15
Sandy soil, steep, 7% 0.15-0.20
Residential: Heavy soil, flat, 2% 0.13-0.17
Single-family areas 0.30-0.50 Heavy soil, ave., 2-7% 0.18-0.22
Mufti units, detached 0.40-0.60 Heavy soil, steep, 7% 0.25-0.35
Mufti units, attached 0.60-0.75
Suburban Agricultural land:
0.25-0.40
.
Bare packed soil
Industrial: Smooth 0.30-0.60
Light areas 0.50-0.80 Rough 0.20-0.50
Heavy areas 0.60-0.90 Cultivated rows
Heavy soil no crop 0.30-0.60
Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25 Heavy soil with crop 0.20-0.50
Sandy soil no crop 0.20-0.40
Playgrounds 0.20-0.35 Sandy soil with crop 0.10-0.25
Pasture
Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 Heavy soil 0.15-0.45
Sandy soil 0.05-0.25
Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Woodlands 0.05-0.25-
Streets:
Asphalt 0.70-0.95
Concrete 0.80-0.95
Brick 0.70-0.85
Drives and walks 0.75-0.85
Roofs 0.75-0.85
NOTE: The designe r must use judgment to select the appropriate C value
within the range for t he appropriate land use. Generally, larg er areas with
permeable soils, flat slopes, and dense vegetation should have lowest C
values. Smaller are as with slowly permeable soils, steep slopes, and
sparse vegetation should be assigned highest C values.
Source: American Society of Civil Engineers
The overland flow portion of flow time may be determined from Figure 8.03a.
The flow time (in minutes) in the channel can be estimated by calculating the
average velocity in feet per minute and dividing the length (in feet) by the
average velocity.
Step 4. Determine the rainfall intensity, frequency, and duration (Figures 8.03b
through 8.038-source: North Carolina State Highway Commission; Jan.
1973). Select the chart for the locality closest to your location. Enter the
"duration" axis of the chart with the calculated time of concentration, Tc. Move
vertically until you intersect the curve of the appropriate design storm, then
move horizontally to read the rainfall intensity factor, i, in inches per hour.
Step S. Determine peak discharge, Q (ft3/sec), by multiplying the previously
determined factors using the rational formula (Sample Problem 8.03a).

O.'Z

8.03.2
01
.
Appendices

20
15 Ashevill e
10
8
• ?
o 6
9
0 4 et

D ??n
Ae?,O I
? ? _ ; a
1'
2 e
d
.. ?a?s
es
' 1
JVt0"?„ 1 i s
8
0
.
4
0 o.s
.
.
0.4
A
?' 1
. 1
0.2

01.1 .
5
O 20
40 60 2 3 4 6 8 12 18 24
Minutes Hours
Duration
Figure 8.03f Rainfall intensity duration curves-Asheville.

20
15 I Charlotte
10
8
6
0
J 21, 0 IN,
@
f
- 4 ??
s
o
y
2 e '
s °
?s
C/3 i s
a?
c
0
8
-
-
.
=
C0 0.6 - -
C:
CO
OC 0.4

0.2
0.1
5 10 20 40 60 2 3 4 6 8 12 18 24
Minutes Hours
Duration
Figure 8.03g Rainfall intensity duration curves-Charlotte.
8.03.7
OWWA K5
mcGM (? ` ??''(?
A S S O C I A T E S ?7?G ?V•? ' Y t? V
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A_, P.O. Box 2259 st
j / /I • )? l?J? (( ; /t l Asheville, North Carolina 28802 +?„Q0? 8•,?1.0?
l ? ` l li\
` iiY
• ` \ - " ? ? :. ? •l(1? I I ???j?--?? l `/` ( ?/? (III. 1( ??? ?//
?? r ???=-S ? i t e j ??? r?? (? li?? ? '` I(??/ ^-{ (?` ?l' ????I?( •??i x!11 ?S/?) l? -
60 000
FEET T NN..
. % `- .?,. ? II?h,\?C'''.!-???j j? !Ili ??Ilj ?' `I ).'?Ji'j •/ ???', ?,?/???
' ebarg; r ?errZ?-?? ,, % \\; i /" '•II I jjii;(?, ? ? I I ((?f'i -.=i1?? :(? if, I ? i I! ? ?'
4028
`„j11?
?r
-?-,1
>=? rte, , ?-? ?' { ,?,: /l/,i? J) ? ? ? r??)? ?+ j 1 o??j ? ?• II (I ??"??.,;?"1 ??
\i 1\\ t tll 11? I ??
,r % /i ?. ?,- `, •,? ??,, l? 1? •' 1\?`\ ?`?l , ?i ? 1 \ ? // /? ? , JJ Ih.,?.,?{(( r(( /t. ,- i /?? ? (/ I I. ?/r?
Lu??? / 1?S??f?? I ?? ? ?, ?1? ???/'/??I 440 l
4027
• ?'?-` \??.' ?? l \? 'r i it /' ? ? ? ? ? ' J ??l' ? ? ? ?-?
• \ ?` ?i / 1, 1 ?! i /U g"-
4026000m.N .
'000 TQ,
00
'VV
• n ?' ? /., - -- __.:1?.-L?? i l.,-sue.
q / ? l
„

McGill
E
A S S 0 C I A T E S
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
JOB N t%Pcv W AT ?? - Pry t-'l ? c.u
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE QO
DESCRIPTION 5 Pi u-w CA l-
SCALE PROJECT NO. d 6 ??
nMcGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 • 828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
JOB VJ A -f (-,g `7 654 b ?
SHEET NO. - OF
DATE D- ' -OO
CALCULATED BY
DESCRIPTION 5 t LA ?C T
SCALE PROJECT NO. UD i O O
McGill
S O C I A T E S
A S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
JOB PE--" WA-rL-- (2
SHEET NO. 4
CALCULATED BY
DESCRIPTION
SCALE
A6ac- Go
OF to
DATE b/31 I oo
LC, . I IF
PROJECT NO. 00100
E McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
JOB
tNAT?7
h5h 6 Co
r9
SHEET NO.
CALCULATED BY OF
DATE
OO
_
?" '"(_
DESCRIPTION
00100
SCALE PROJECT NO.
. McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 • 828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
K-2rV--
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
49
CALCULATED BY DATE Al
14f I
DESCRIPTION
SCALE PROJECT NO. '00101)