20021823 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20021201

•
2002 WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT DRAFT MEETING
MINUTES
Agenda
March 11, Tuesday
1:00-5:00
Opening Remarks:
No comments
Monitoring Reports:
Division 9
Freidburg Marsh Mitigation Site (Forsyth County)
• Multiflora rose issue: There is too much there, and we need to do something
about this problem (DOT-Div. 9)
• REU is handling this situation; they are trying to set up a meeting with Dennis
Herman about the removal of multiflora rose.
• The pond leaking issue: Concluded that the riser at the pond is not leaking.
When the pond is completely saturated, it overflows the top of the pond
through an existing pipe. NCDOT will investigate this summer on whether to
remove or leave the pipe.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 10
Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site (Mecklenburg County)
• Still no response from WRP.
• (COE) "pull the plug from our end" formally put in writing that COE will walk
away and NCDOT must find 13 acres of BLH credit somewhere else.
• (COE) Investigate adjacent properties to find BLH credit.
• (NCDOT) Need to wait and monitor for another full growing season.
• (COE) NCDOT needs to stop monitoring for BLH because NCDOT continues
to refix year after year when the site is still not succeeding. Suggested that
NCDOT can come back and use the site later if the site becomes successful.
But we need 13.1 BLH credits now. The requirement of the permit has not
been met yet.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor the site while searching for 13.1 acres of BLH
credit.
0 A formal letter will be put together.

Mallard Creek Mitigation Site (Mecklenburg County)
• Debit ledger needs to be corrected, for R-211 NCDOT needs 13.1 acres of
restoration.
• Since roadway project is still underway, the vegetation monitoring must
continue, site will have to be evaluated once the road widening is complete.
• (COE) "Static" ground water levels vary substantially from gauges MW-6 &
MW-8 to 17 inches below, while gauges MW-7 & MW-9 are 35 inches below.
• (NCDOT) Could be that gauges 6 & 8 are only 20" gauges, while 7 & 9 are
40" gauges. (Checked with geotech, Clay Murray, and gauges 6&8 are
20"gauges)
• NCDOT will look into the beaver activity onsite.
• (COE) Sweet gum issue needs to be resolved; it's taking over the site. Site 1
looks good, while Site 2 is marginal.
• REU did not note Sweet gum in the 2002 report, but will address, monitor,
and propose remediation for 2003.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Long Creek Mitigation Site (Mecklenburg County)
• NCDOT will continue to monitor, once roadway is complete, project will be
evaluated.
• (COE) The debit ledger does not account for 5.12 acres utilized for TIP R-
2248 AC/AD/BA.
• NCDOT will correct debit ledger and repost on website.
• (NCDOT) Can NCDOT suspend vegetation monitoring on these sites that are
still under roadway construction and do a follow up count after road is built?
• (COE) Agrees with suspending vegetation monitoring if NCDOT wants to, just
as long as NCDOT can locate it plots and conducts tree counts.
• Agencies still want a vegetation visual observation report.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 11
Bethel Church Mitigation Site (Yadkin County)
• NO COMMENTS
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 14
Mudd Creek Mitigation Site (Henderson County)
• (NCDOT) Geotech made site visit in March and discovered a tile drain in the
creation area, which could possibly be leaking water from the site; NCDOT
needs to investigate this.
• (COE) Wants an assessment/summary of the Chinese privet removal in the
enhancement area.
• NCODT will pull out the gauges in the creation area, but will check the tile
drain first.
• NCDOT will try to close the site next year.
• Schedule on site meeting with Steve Lund to look at the enhancement area.
• Debit ledger needs to be corrected, % remaining column has no title, and
check the Corps ID numbers.
Closing Comments:
Jean Manuel suggested NCDOT use a different type of gauge other than the
RDS wells. Tommy from Geotech is looking into this.
Agenda
March 12, Wednesday
9:00-5:00
Opening Remarks:
• (COE) Suggest including permit condition for each report.
• NCDOT will mail a CD to the agencies, containing all the updated pdf reports.
Monitoring Reports:
Division 3 (Full Delivery Sites)
Eagle Brunswick Tract (Brunswick County)
• (COE) No credit until pre-project data is presented.
• (DWQ) The scales on the graphs are hard to read and follow.
• (DCM) Suggest putting graphs one per page to better read.
Dale Tract (Brunswick County)
• No comments
Rowell Branch (Brunswick County)
• DCM says sight looks good.
• Need to find abetter way to compare sight data and reference data.
• (DWQ) No restoration credit.
McIntyre Tract (Brunswick County)
• (DWQ) has concerns with phragmites.
• Ecobank has sprayed phragmites twice, but not sure what chemical used.
• Silt fence will be removed.
• Concerns with cypress not doing well, planted in summer, June 02.
Division 1
B-3193 Scranton Creek Bridge (Hyde County)
• (COE) A quick estimate of the number of trees would be very helpful to
include in the report.
• REU will provide an estimate of the number of trees in future reports.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Ballance Farm Mitigation Site (Currituck County)
• (DOT) discussed the marsh delineation done in July 02. Presented the marsh
delineation map (Figure 4) in the report.
• (COE) The marsh delineation map looks fairly close to the original marsh
map.
• (COE) still concerned with the overbank flooding.
• (COE) Referring to the surface water graphs, does not believe the site
showed inundation the entire year.
• NCDOT will recheck the surface gauge graphs. The graphs are showing
inundation for the entire year; also the ground elevation of 0" does not look
correct.
• (DCM) Dennis may have some additional comments after site visit.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Casey Tract Mitigation Site (Currituck County)
• (COE) Wants to look at the site before NCDOT closes out.
• (DCM) Suggested that when NCDOT purposes to close a site, the last years
monitoring report should be a summary report, detailing all past years data,
also include past years vegetation photos.
• When NCDOT purposes to close a site, NCDOT will continue with the
monitoring report the way that NCDOT has been, but in the close out letter,
there will be a summary of the success of the site.
• (DWQ) Mentioned that groundwater gauges 6 & 8 are failing.
• Gauge 6 is located on upland, while 8 are in the reference area on a berm
behind the site.
• NCDOT will submit closeout letter to agencies.
Collington Cut Mitigation Site (Dare County)
• (DCM) concerns that the site does not have 50% coverage of juncas
roemerianus. DCM cannot make the decision to close the site as of right
now. NCDOT needs to talk to Doug Huggett about this issue.
• Fax the close out letter again to DCM that NCDOT sent last year.
• NCDOT is waiting on a response from DCM to close out.
Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (Gates/Perquimans County)
• Riverine issue. Is there any overbank flooding??
• NCDOT recently made a site visit during early March 03, and submitted
pictures during the meeting documenting over bank flooding.
• NCDOT will investigate the gauges and graphs. Need to show the correlation
between the surface gauge in the creek to surface gauges within the riverine
area.
• NCDOT will survey the gauges, and resubmit a surface gauge report to prove
riverine area.
• (COE) Mentioned that riverine credits have already been debited.
• (COE) NCDOT needs to show inundation for the riverine area.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Huskanaw Swamp (Martin County)
• NCDOT proposing to close site.
• (COE) stated that the site met this year during an above normal rainfall, so
need to monitor again for an average rainfall year.
• (COE) Wants 2 good success years before closing site, has not been a
success every year.
• (DOT) stated that the site met success last year for 2001.
• Beth Smyre pulled up the 2000 and 2001 reports on the projector, agencies
still concerned with the site draining for the 2000 year.
• NCDOT will summarize the past years gauge data and include in the 2003
report.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Manteo Bypass Bridge Mitigation Site (Dare County)
• (COE) Site does not have 50% coverage of juncas roemerianus. Do not
replant.
• NCDOT submitted pictures during the meeting from a recent site visit,
showing excellent coverage.
• (DCM) Stated that it looks better than last year.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Mashoes Road Mitigation Site (Dare County)
• Phragmites issue! NCDOT will continue to treat Phragmites.
• (COE) Mound needs to be removed, comments from the 2001 report meeting
stated that NCDOT would remove the mound.
• Concluded that NCDOT will decide whether to remove the mound at the end
of monitoring. NCDOT will GPS the mound this year.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site (Chowan County)
• Continue to Monitor for year 5.
Roanoke Island Mitigation Site (Dare County)
• (DWQ) Concerned with the reference gauges, the reference gauges are not
similar to the regular gauges. Suggested maybe the reference gauges are
not in the correct location, possibility NCDOT needs to relocate the reference
gauges to another area, OR install more reference gauges.
• Geotech stated that the elevations were similar.
• NCDOT will investigate reference gauges.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Tucker Tract Mitigation Site (Currituck County)
• (COE) concluded that NCDOT does not need to take out (high area) 1/2 acre
from gauge TT-6 from the debit ledger. DOT measured the area and totaled
0.08 acres.
• Concerns that the oaks at the front of the site are too stunted, not growing.
• Concluded that the oaks are stunted because the area where planted is too
wet.
• (COE) suggested that NCDOT plant cypress where the oaks are stunted,
because this area may possibly become a marsh area, not BLH.
• NCDOT will supplementary plant cypress in plots 10 & 11.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
White's Store Mitigation Site (Dare County)
• REU will till, fertilize, and plant site.
• There are currently 2 groundwater gauges installed at White's Store,
Agencies want NCDOT to remove both gauges and reinstall with 2 surface
gauges.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 2
ABC Wetland Mitigation Site (Beaufort County)
• Agencies requested a site visit.
• Comment was made about too many gauge failures. Geotech will investigate
this and try to cut down on the failures.
• NCDOT will set up a site visit with agencies and will continue to monitor.
Cedar Point Mitigation Site (Carteret County)
• REU will till, fertilize, and plant site.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Croatan Wetland Mitigation Site (Craven County)
• MBI will be signed.
• Concerns with MU 16 & MU 17 not making it.
• (ESI) Gauges are located near the lake, plus low rainfall contributed to the
lack of success.
• Some areas did not make it, but it has improved since pre-construction.
• (ESI) answered questions about the soil types in the reference area.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Deer Creek Mitigation Site (Carteret County)
• DCM commented that Bill Arrington is very satisfied with the spillway problem
that NCDOT fixed this past year.
• (COE) complimented NCDOT's time and effort for the surface graphs. SG-1 is
showing flooding twice daily which is a good sign.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Grimesland Sand Pit Mitigation Site (Pitt County)
• Concerns with the 2 surface graphs showing inundation the entire year, not
very likely.
• Before the meeting, NCDOT corrected the elevation problem on the surface
graphs and the graphs are showing inundation but not throughout the entire
year.
• Concerns with the oaks not surviving. NCDOT will keep an eye on the oaks.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Gurley Mitigation Site (Greene County)
• (COE) Had concerns with the delineation map in the report.
• (DOT) confirmed that the map was updated, areas in white on map are the
areas that were delineated.
• Agencies agreed that NCDOT could discontinue monitoring the vegetation
plots in the delineation areas.
• Make sure the delineation area is removed from the debit ledger.
• NCDOT will repair rock flume on levee, no permit required because in a non-
jurisdict area.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Lengyel Mitigation Site (Graven County)
• Rock has been removed.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 3
B-2513 Hood Creek Bridge (Brunswick County)
• REU will provide an estimate of the number of trees in future reports.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
B-2854 Long Creek Bridge (Pender County)
• Check on vegetation.
• REU will provide an estimate of the number of trees in future reports.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
B-3008 Juniper Swamp Bridge (Onslow County)
• REU will provide an estimate of the number of trees in future reports.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
B-3011 Moore's Creek Bridge (Pender County)
• After 3 years of monitoring, field representatives from DCM will make a site
visit and comment.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site (New Hanover County)
• Site was replanted with 3-gallon cypress.
• (COE) Does not need to restart vegetation monitoring.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Haws Run Mitigation Site (Onslow/Pender County)
• Eroding slope problem! (COE) stated that all slopes need work to them.
• NCDOT will repair eroding slope this summer, proposed to use riprap.
• Need to correct debit ledger in report, (COE) stated that several TIP projects
needed to be deleted from debit ledger and also take off all "proposed"
projects.
• (COE) Satisfied with the groundwater gauge graphs and the comparisons of
each.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Spring Branch Mitigation Site (New Hanover County)
• NCDOT purposes to close out.
• Agencies agree to close out Spring Branch
• NCDOT will provide a summary of the past years success in the close out
letter.
US Marine Corps Mitigation Site (Onslow County)
• NCDOT will replace reference gauges, no rain gauge will be installed.
• (COE) Wants NCDOT to keep track of shoreline monitoring, and address
further in the monitoring report.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 4
Benson Grove Mitigation Site (Johnston County)
• (DWQ) Expected higher percentages than 13.1 for the gauges.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Mildred Woods Mitigation Site (Edgecombe County)
• REU handed out a proposal concerning the removal of invasive species.
• REU is still undecided on which method of tree removal to use. BUT will still
monitor for one year after treatment.
• (COE) suggested NCDOT decide on a density number, when exceed that
number, then NCDOT will react.
• REU suggested for future projects, that they would plant in straight rows.
• Agencies agree with REU's proposal.
• The gauge percentages are not matching up with (Figure 4) Hydrologic
monitoring results.
• On site visit with NCDOT and agencies to confirm site delineation.
• NCDOT will correct the hydraulic graphs and tables.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Wiggins Mill Mitigation Site (Wilson County)
• (DWQ) Believes NCDOT needs to recut the stream. There is a low sinuosity,
possibility it was made too steep to begin with.
• Consultant to survey in order to evaluate if high water has hampered survey.
NCDOT will schedule meeting with agencies once survey data is complete.
• (COE) Are vegetation plots representative of the site, concern for the trees in
the creation area.
(COE) Keep an eye on zone 4, sweet gum.
NCDOT will continue to monitor.
White Oak Swamp (Johnston County)
• Replanted in December 2002.
• (COE) In the report for debit ledger, need to include a statement that there
are areas that need to be monitored for success before credits are released.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 5
Dutchman's Mitigation Site (Wake County)
• Agencies concerned with gauges 3,4,5 failing. Gauge 5 was marginal, located
on a berm. All 3 gauges showed flashy responses.
• Is there any mitigation credits around these gauges?
• (COE) Need additional mitigation to replace creation.
• (DWQ) Give another year to monitor because of the low rainfall. Concerned
with the creation area.
• (COE) Suggested adding additional gauges in the creation area.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
New Light Creek Mitigation Site (Wake County)
• REU did not note any further beaver activity.
• (COE) NCDOT needs to delineate levee area, and the entire site.
• A delineation will be performed. Once the delineation is complete, NCDOT
will schedule with agencies an on-site visit to confirm the delineation.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Speight Branch (Wake County)
• No Comments, NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 6
Dowd Dairy Farm Mitigation Site (Bladen County)
• (DWQ) Too much gauge failure. Geotech investigating
• (COE) Gauges that did not meet are located on the canal.
• Richard Spencer requested an onsite visit with NCDOT.
• Keep an eye on the sweet gum presence around gauge 20.
• Vegetation plots 19, 20, 35, 36 were below minimum. Concluded plots 35 &
.36 are ponded.
• On-site meeting with agencies is currently being scheduled.
0 NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 7
South Buffalo Mitigation Site (Guilford County)
• Possible close out next year.
• (DWQ) page 4, footnote reference, should not be New Hanover County,
should be Guilford County. Look into this.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Division 8
Long Swamp (Hoke County)
• NCDOT still waiting for response for credit ratios concerning the delineation.
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Sandy Creek Mitigation Site (Randolph County)
• No Comments
• NCDOT will continue to monitor.
Closing Comments:
ti
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site
Mecklenburg County
Project No. 8.0670122
TIP No. R-211 DA

to
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2002
j
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 2
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................. 3
1.4 DEBIT LEDGER ........................................................................................ 5
2.0 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................ 6
2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 6
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING ...........................................8
2.3.1 Site Data ......................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Climatic Data ................................................................................. 10
2.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 10
3.0 VEG ETATION: LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE ...............................
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................................. ....
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES ......................................................................
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING .......................................... 13
3.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... ....
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................15
0
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Gauge Location Map .................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. Monitoring Gauge Hydrologic Results ...................................................... 11
Figure 4. Little Sugar Creek 30-70 Graph, Charlotte, NC ....................................... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site Debit Ledger ......................................... 5
Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring: Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site-
12" Success Criteria ................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by plot ...........................................14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS
APPENDIX C LETTER TO N.C. WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAM,
OCTOBER 8, 2001
0
a
Summary
The Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site, located in Mecklenburg County, is in its sixth
year of monitoring. Approximately 21 acres in size, the site was to serve as mitigation
for the R-211 DA section of the Charlotte Outer Loop. The site was originally
constructed in the winter of 1996-97. The site must demonstrate success, in regards to
hydrology and vegetation for a minimum of three years. The Little Sugar Creek site is
monitored for both wetland hydrology and vegetation survival.
Prior to 2002 growing season, the Department made an adjustment to the emergency
spillways at all locations on-site. The elevation of each emergency spillway was raised
to match the elevation of the flood control structures at both locations on-site. Riprap
was then replaced.
The daily rainfall data depicted on the gauge data graphs is recorded from an on-site
rain gauge. Additional Charlotte rainfall data used for the 30-70 graph was provided by
the NC State Climate Office. In 2002, Charlotte experienced a dry early growing
season, which is the most critical part of the year to meet hydrologic success criteria for
this site.
Vegetation survival rates at the site are above the minimum success criteria. The
average tree density for bottomland hardwood species is 623 trees per acre after:five
years. Planted shrub species were observed at a density of 340 trees per acre.
Herbaceous plantings are also becoming very well established in the bottom and side
slopes.of the channels.
In addition per the request of the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Department has
made a request to The Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) to provide the outstanding
mitigation needs for the.. R-211 DA Charlotte Outer Loop. (See Appendix C for letter to
WRP.) While the request was made to cover outstanding mitigation needs on the 7
roadway project, the Department intends to explore all options at this mitigation site, in
an effort to make as much of the site a success as possible. To date, the Department
has received no written response from WRP regarding this request. tYu?vu?a
L -t, At,
S IUC }
AXL
VJtW
1
4
e
Introduction
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site is located in Mecklenburg County. The site,
which encompasses approximately 21 acres, is situated at the intersection of Highway
51 and Leitner Drive (Figure 1). It was designed as mitigation for a portion of the
Charlotte Outer Loop project that extends from NC 51 to Rea Road (TIP No. R-211 DA,
USACE Action ID 199200013).
The project provides for the restoration/creation of bottomland forest, shrub-scrub
wetland, and emergent marsh. The site was originally constructed in the winter 1996-
97; NCDOT performed supplemental planting work in 1998. The site is in its first year of
hydrologic and vegetation monitoring following the site modification prior to the 2002
growing season. ?
1.2 PURPOSE
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, Little Sugar Creek is monitored for both
hydrology and vegetation. The following report describes the results of the hydrologic
and vegetative monitoring during 2002 at the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site.
Included in this report are the hydrologic and vegetation monitoring results, as well as
an analysis of local climate conditions throughout the growing season, and site
photographs.
2
I
t
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY
March 1997
March-November 1997
September 1997
March 1998
March-November 1998
September 1998
March-November 1999
September 1999
March-November 2000
September 2000
February 2001
March-November 2001
June 2001
March 2002
March-November 2002
August 2002
Site planted
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Shrub Area Replanted -?,..
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (4 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
Raised weir at sheet piles
Hydrologic Monitoring (5 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (5 yr.)
Adjusted emergency spillway elevations
Hydrologic Monitoring (6 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (6 yr.)
3

A
A fJ
r Lr
A?A ?? ?j• _' ?•aF^~^ a? ? •?''Y l•_? ? a`?','Y ?' ? Fem. ']'?.1 • ~•
"c?,? w,?-h ? , tea'- *?"
a +?s r
zo
uan?aXtac$GaKI ? .
n
C) Li 'o *RYI
J c M- r Q x rya` y J
L- ollp
s .-
CO { ?tl
14
x
?' ac
,? p r
6ifc 1?4i.?4`'i?
i ILAr ? ej"Y W4LK
F
1.4 DEBIT LEDGER
Table 1. Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site Debit Ledger
Mitigation Plan TIP Debit
Site I!abitat Wetland Acres at
Acres Remaining ' y
°/a Remaining
R-211 DA .;
Start
BLH, Scrub 13
1 0 0.00 13.1
Shrub, FWM .
BLH: Bottomland Hardwood FWM: Freshwater Marsh
5
2.0 Hydrology
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that areas must be inundated or saturated (within 12 inches of the
surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the growing
season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are always classified
as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season can
be classified as wetlands depending upon such factors as the presence of wetland
vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Mecklenburg County begins March 22 and ends November 11,
lasting 235 days. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures
will not drop below 28F or lower after March 22 and before November 11.1 Minimum
wetland hydrology is required for at least 12.5% of this growing season; for
Mecklenburg County, this 12.5% equals 29 consecutive days. Local climate must
represent average conditions for the area in order for the hydrologic data to be
considered successful.
2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Nine groundwater gauges, one rain gauge, and three 80 inch surface water gauges
were installed in 1997 (Figure 2). The automatic monitoring gauges record daily
readings of the groundwater depth.
The sluice gates, which were closed in July 1999 to hold surface flow water on the site,
remained closed in 2002. In an attempt to further augment the site hydrology, the weir
was raised about 8 inches in the ditch where the sheet piles are located and clay was
added to the face of the rip-rap at the emergency spillway in 2001. The elevation of
both emergency spillway outlets was raised to match the elevation of the flood control
structure in March 2002.
Runoff from the surrounding area is the primary hydrologic input to the Little Sugar
Creek site. A stormwater pipe, running underneath Leitner Drive, releases water
collected from adjacent shopping centers near gauge 9. The monitoring gauges on the
site are to show the effects of the stormwater collected in the channels as well as the
effects of specific rainfall events on the groundwater table.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Mecklenburq County. North Carolina, p.61.
6
f
}

m U Ile,

O m a
C 2) co
O O O U
CD -

4= 'O (B ?
N ? ' j

W co U
O tq

i _
O t

Co
I
C N N ? ??
` ti
O
w
ca
cc

J ?

?.
y.

L
?.+
4
T

d
,
1 ??r
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
2.3.1 Site Data
To determine if the site met the Federal guidelines, saturation within 12 inches of the
surface for at least 12.5% of the growing season, the maximum number of consecutive
days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface was determined for
each gauge. This number was converted into a percentage of the 235-day growing
season. The results are presented in Table 3.
Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater and surface water depth for each
groundwater and surface gauge, respectively. The individual precipitation events,
shown on the monitoring gauge graphs as bars, represent data collected from the on-
site rain gauge or from a Charlotte weather station (provided by the NC State Climate
Office). If the gauge shows saturation for 5% or greater of the growing season, the
maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph. The rain gauge on the
site was replaced with a more accurate measuring device prior to the beginning of the
2000 monitoring season.
The surface water gauges have indicated consistent surface water in the channels
throughout the growing season. Three of the groundwater gauges registered success
for a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season, and 2 gauges registered above 8% of
the growing season.
8
Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring: Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site
Success Criteria

?S
?j
Monit ing
g
5%
5-8%
8-12.5%
> 12.5% Actual
t ,:. Dates.of _
Ga < Success
LSC-2 ? 5.5 Mar 22 - Apr 14
LSC-4 10.6 Mar 22 -Apr 11
LSC-5 ? 5.1 Mar 22 - Apr 12
Mar 30 - Apr 10
LSC-6* ? 13.6
Oct 11-Nov 11
Mar 30 - Apr 7
LSC-7* ? 12.3
Oct 14-Nov 11
LSC-8 ? 12.3 Mar 22 - Apr 18
Mar 22 - Apr 14
LSC-9* ? 13.6
Oct 11-Nov 11
LSC-11 ? 6.8 Mar 22 - Apr. 13
Mar 22 - Mar
26
LSC-12* ? 13.6 ,
Oct 11-Nov 11
* Gauges met the success criteria during an above average rainfall for the month of
October.
Specific gauge problems:
• Gauge 2 did not record data from (January to April 9), due to battery failure.
• Gauge 12 had battery failure 3 times through (May 8-September 5).
• Gauge 2, 4, 5, 8 could not be downloaded due to high water level through (October
10-November 11).
9
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 3 is a comparison of 2001 and 2002 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for
the area. This comparison indicates if 2002 was below average in terms of climate
conditions by comparing the rainfall to that of historical rainfall (data collected between
1971 and 2002). Historic data was provided by the NC State Climate Office.
October was the only month to receive above average rainfall. The months of January,
March, May, August, and September all recorded average rainfall for the site. February,
April, June, and July experienced below average rainfall. Based on the data collected
from the Charlotte weather station, the site received below average rainfall during 2002.
2.4CONCLUSIONS
The beginning of the growing season is the most critical time for a site; this is when the
gauges will most likely meet success due to the recharge of rainfall before the growing
season. When the rainfall for these months is below average, then the rain never fully
recharges causing saturation levels to decrease.
November and December 2001, February and April 2002 experienced below average
rainfall. Along with the dry climatic conditions and several of the gauges experiencing
malfunctions, the gauges at Little Sugar experienced difficulty meeting success. Three -
of the nine gauges showed saturation for 12.5% of the growing season, 2 of the gauges
showed between 8 and 12.5% saturation, 2 of the gauges showed between 5 and 8%,
and only 1 of the gauges showed less than 5% saturation during the growing season.
Based on the lack of average rainfall for 2002, NCDOT proposes to continue monitoring
this site in order to determine the overall effects of the modifications to the site.
10
A
U
O
O
A
2
O
O1
O.
c0
CD.
0)
.LC
O
.E
CO
C
M
V
LL
? O
? In
a °
s
y° A 00 rn V
r
N
i
:!k l:
r
v3 ..
I
q.,

40
alk s

N
O
O
N
t
CL
'Ev
V
d
i Z
a a;
° o
? r.
O L
M ?
3 d V
? i
LL U
L
J
I

s

Al.

=A±u_:

O
U
<N
O
O
Z
N
O
U
O
N
O
p, N
N
0
m
d
CN ?
O
O O
Q
m
7
a)
CL
c -
C)
04 O m
C I
m
c ?cu
c
N Up
d
T N
U0
CD
C)
CV
QI
0. m
Q c
CN O
O O
CV
N
CN
O
C
CV
O
C
N
O
U
O
O
Z
N
r
CD Un NP Cl) N O
tu) uoi;e;idiaaJd
3.0 VEGETATION: LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 6 MONITORING)
3.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria states that there must be a minimum mean density of 320
characteristic trees species/acre surviving for at least three years in the
bottomland forest area of the site. Characteristic tree species are those species
planted along with natural recruitment of sweetgum, red maple, and loblolly pine.
Loblolly pine cannot comprise more than 10% of the 320 trees per acre. No
quantitative sampling requirements were developed for the herbaceous and
shrub assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria per the August
1995 mitigation plan.
3.2 Description of Species
The following shrub species were re-planted in the Wetland Shrub Restoration
Area:
Cornus amomum, Silky Dogwood
Leucothoe axillaris, Dog Hobble
Rhododendron arborescens, Smooth Azalea
Sambucus canadensis, Elderberry
Viburnum nudum, Possum Haw
Aesculus sylvatica, Painted Buckeye
Lindera benzoin, Spicebush
The following herbaceous species were planted in the Channel Areas:
Juncus effusus, Soft Rush
Scirpus validus, Bullrush
The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Betula nigra, River Birch
Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
13
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by plot

C6 ila

CL
06
1 (Shrub) 1 15 30 4
2 BLH 12 1 8 2 5 28 30 635
3 BLH 13 2 4 1 7 27 30 612
AVERAGE TREE BLH DENSITY 623
Site Notes: Other species noted: wild garlic, Juncus sp., Queen-Anne's-lace;
various grasses, foxtail, switchgrass, fennel, sycamore, locust, smartweed,
volunteer green ash, Aster sp., wooly panicum, ragweed, and cottonwood.
Elderberry noted in plot 1. Silky dogwood is noted in plot 3. Ditches are full of
Juncus sp.
3.4 Conclusions
Approximately 9.8 acres of this site was planted in bottomland hardwoods in
March 1997. There were two vegetation monitoring plots established in the
bottomland hardwood area, Plot #2 and #3. The 2002 vegetation monitoring
revealed an average density of 623 trees per acre, well above the 320 tree/acre
minimum requirement. Approximately 3.2 acres of this site was planted with
shrub species. The 2002 vegetation monitoring of Plot #1 revealed an average
density of 340 trees per acre. The remaining 3.7 acres was planted with
herbaceous plant material. From visual observation, (see photos) this plant
material has become established in the bottom and side slopes of the channels
on the site.
NCDOT proposes to discontinue vegetation monitoring at the Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site.
`C lC . l 7'/p1
(p ` 14
All
4.0 Overall Conclusions/Recommendations
In the bottomland hardwood area, the 2002 vegetation monitoring revealed an average
density of 623 trees per acre, well above the 320 tree/acre minimum requirement. In
the shrub area, the 2001 vegetation monitoring revealed an average density of 340
trees per acre. The herbaceous plant material has become established in the channels
throughout the site.
The site modifications made prior to the 2002 growing season appear to have improved
the site's hydrologic success. However, the rainfall for 2002 appears to be below
average making it difficult to determine if modifications are sufficient.
NCDOT has the following recommendations:
• Continue monitoring the site to determine if the increase in the emergency
spillway elevation adjustments were sufficient modification such that the site
meets during an average year of rainfall.
• A request has been made to The Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) find
additional Bottomland Hardwood Mitigation areas to cover mitigation needs for
the R-211 DA section of Charlotte outer loop. Once an agreement it in place with
WRP, all necessary documentation will be forwarded to the resource agencies.
15
APPENDIX A
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
LITTLE SUGAR
Photo 1
Photo 5
2001
Photo 4
Photo 6
i

.
i
too
1
t7
• ? l;? ??

-JD
II
L Esc J

x

# RE ...„pna .?
i ?

Yid ,t• ? 1 t a

?yaM1? .1 - _ - ,r

t,
?E

t

r

a
0
0
N
APPENDIX C
LETTER TO N.C. WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAM,
OCTOBER 8, 2001
a ^y,
?K
f .',JS't t ifs NoR,,11-t C r41tOt i N .1;

nor f
Mr- Ronald E. FcrrcII,'PragF&h 11+Utl:t t
DENR-DWQ
P-0. Box 29535
Rai, 0, *i1~ "fit r _f s 1
LYN, L>t, 7 t i,pu r-tr
' WJJF',t
Dcar Sir
k RT,-Q1."FST FOP ACCF-17,8N(TT, rYF NAT-, n, AN rr VMii"ATION Frrw
ci tr th tc e i lit o chs Churtoric:O rr-cr, kP R-211 PA
tAtIho t *w'it ortE14 E r =`mvi (o.rps [:-flAMMcers, the N' T,h Cf-11 girL7i r7gtarMK Ttof
TraanW-rtadon ?W-D IT) wojifii Ur ;,,c, ze w itot,,410- ' lr_ ,?tiE fltl ini6gatitmi credit=r fntrthe
?.a,r krrttsxn_vjtust
€tbrxnc 1?nri ith tr='ar;irt3r C::ut l:nir ?'ctfar.l? Ct?.torr:itir n f°rr i IZ The
al,µa the 4tir urf9bx. 3tL I is irile Su lr t n ck r tv: 1 itwIly Fm rrrvO by W DOT :a? miYi}rnti d for qty
211 liar! is to mrMicir° l ww-eting huttrplc?? crii+cnaL Thr ipck: ft? of the rc-que o :vc bc&mv,
Mockle Courty,1Wr ITO Prmirce
!? t?r?vka?Ric?asir?,??r?lf,?t?ir??,??r<it;l?:?it{51r7
* k.! trcr?txf v??l{;?r! initirs:?ii?rt is rer?tli,?
+r '? 'f? 15 il5rtt-r}PrtT".?n,1?,itttuli?lucl frr?l
For 133 iirmm at a cost of $1 -2,1M0 Kr v.-jr. N DOT t% lt€ powng to pmvi>l- rnynicitt in the
netrt urlt t?A S t 7 of fen 111f t w ctltin?i rni race , if you arc Willing 10 tacccpi mqq -I isihibry for
crLirrageczssatmy tttidgwimi fur rhi:, pfejt t pkaix secki a letter o conllmmaiurt) to Mar Fraser tat
` C.DO ',r"gct De>elaprntmi yid unvirumn-wntal Aru-lgwim Brarxh. Iryou hwm a ny g4OVie gr
t dadditiaod ibh6ntitAimi&4? v. cull Nfmv Fmwrai (919) 731-1 ?>1(I
Siat comlY,
V4irlum D. G l4aon? , P.E_, Mfitupet
Prviect " elupnr LnI &I F. nirua mum--tal Akunty tch
6ir. StcwLurid, UISA F, A4 v lk: Field f'tif>ik,,;
his. Cynthia Vtrrl Der Wit-le, NC DENPe Divisinrt •:rf WMer Q"its
Mr, David Fraltkh , Curf*, of Engimkmr_ 4h'lfaliyl Amid O fim
MT,N, I-, GMf, RR, MINA
W Mot Uomey, N(DENR, CIM ci of Watt Qmfity
W. Ekr&-,it ta. to tt^, 11`.11.. D vlrtuatt ttl Litower
' cuf,, t: 91e4"41 tasC.AMW
IAW-W Ar rX W,3 _ 'FYww;_«r, ,cm OuLaw ,
3?r?_WCT 1.S7t,1M'IR`rLMt',?.W' A?t3Z2
VAO44U: S ars ;.t or v t114i ?1!t`4 ?XCE.tla irlt Qu.i":K
w
rn
LL
m
co
N
N
'J
N
J
NOIIVIIdIO31ld
Ua U>
CV N O O
ZOOGG-LZ
zooaa-u
ZOooa-66
ZO-Ma-£0
ZOAON-9Z
ZOAON-1 L
ZOAON-60
ZOAONIO
MOW
Z01D094
Zw0-80
ZOdes-0£
ZOdaS-ZZ
ZOdaS-v6
ZOdes-90
ZOSnd-6Z
ZOSnb-6Z
ZO6nb-£ 6
ZO6nb-BO
aanr9Z
ZOlnr-0Z
ZoInr-u
ZOlnr-to
Zo-unr9Z
ZO-unr-g6
ZO-unr-oL
ZO-unr-ZO
Z0-Aaw-gZ
ZO-AeW-L6
ZO-ABW-60
ZO-Avw-w
ZO-Jdd-£Z
Z0-Jdv- 6
ZO-J4-Lo
ZO-JeW"O£
ZO-JeW-ZZ
ZO-JeW-K
ZO-JBW90
ZO-gad9Z
ZO-gad-q 6
Z0-gad-o4
Zo-gad-ZO
Z0-uer-SZ
ZO-uer-u
Zo-uer-60
Zo-uer-60
D
CL
w
0
0
w
of
D
0
w
Of
CA
LL
co
co
LO
Cl)
N
C7
J
ci.)
J
N
0
N
Q?
117
J
Q
LL
Z

LO O 0 O to N N M to
(-ui) ae;ennpunoJ j o; 4;dea
NOIl`dlld103ad
U? U? U?
(N N - O O

U
Q
cn
U
w
CO)
v
C7
J
ch
J
ZO3aa-LZ
ZO30a-U
Z030016
ZO30a-SO
ZMoN•5Z
ZOAON-L 6
ZOAON-60
ZOAON•60
ZOI• OW
Z0 3096
ZWO-80
Zodag-og
Zodes-ZZ
Zodes-v6 =
H
ZOdes-9o CL
ZOBnv-6Z D
w
ZOBnV-6Z
ZOBnd-g? CJ
w
ZOBnbSO
Zolnr-8Z
ZOlnr•OZ Q
CJD
ZOlnr Z6 o w
ZOlnr-VO v
ZO-unr9Z
Zo-unr-86
J
Zo-unr-06 I
ZO-unr-Zo
ZO-6ew-gZ Q
ZO-AeW-L6 Z_
ZO-SRN-60
ZO-Aew-w
ZO-JdN•8Z
ZO•JdVS4
ZO-Jd`d-Lo
Zo-Jew-oc
Zo-Jew-ZZ
Zo-JBW-V G
ZO-JBW90
Zo•gad9Z
Zo-gad-86
Zo-gad•o 6
Zo•gad•Zo
Zo-uer-BZ
ZO-uerlL
Zo•uer-6o
Zo-uemo
lA O 0 O LO N N M LO ?
(-u il) jolempunoj j o; y;dea
Y
C
D
IJ_
co
N
T-
U)
0
0
3
N
J
N0I1V11dI0321d
U? U
N N •- O O
zooea-LZ
zooaa-6L
zooaa-L L
Zooaa-80
ZMoN•5Z
ZOAaN-L L
ZOAON-60
ZOAON-LO
Z0PO-VZ
Z(400-9L
Z0IDO-80
ZOdes-o8
ZOdes-ZZ
Zodas-tiL
Zodas-90
ZOBnV•6Z
Z06nV-LZ
ZOBnV-8 L
ZOBnV-90
ZOlnr-8Z
ZOlnr-OZ
Zolnr-ZL
ZOlnr-to
Zo-unr-9Z
ZO-unr-8 L
ZO-unr-m
ZO-unr-ZO
ZO•LeW-BZ
ZO•AeWLL
ZO-AeW-60
Zo-LeW-LO
Zo-jdV-£Z
ZO-AV-L
Zo-jdV-Lo
Zo-Je"c
ZO-JeW-ZZ
ZO-JeW-V L
ZO-JeW-90
Zo-gad-9Z
Zolad-8 L
ZO•gad OL
Zo-gad-ZO
ZO-uer-SZ
ZO•Uer-LL
ZO-uer-60
ZO-Uer-LO
O
a
w
0
0
w
D
0
w
Of
LO
0
LL
O N_
N ()
Lf)
C7
C?
J
I
J
J
LL
z

Lo O U) O U) N N M M
(ui) je;ennpunoa j 04 y;daa

N
V
w
u7
cfl
C7
J
Ch
J
NOIIVIIdIO31]d
U? U
N N r O O
ZOM-LZ
ZOOao-6L
ZO3aau
ZO39U-£o
ZOAON-9Z
ZOAON-LL
ZOAON-60
ZOAONIO
ZoPo-6Z
zoo*o1s 6
Z03Do-80
zodes-m
ZOdes-ZZ
zodas-v.
ZOdes-90
ZosnV-6Z
zosnV-v
ZOSnV-£6
ZoOnV-BO
Zolnr-ez
ZOlnr-oz
Zolnr-u
ZOlnr-b0
ZO-unr-9Z
ZO-unr %
Z0-unrv
Zo-unr-ZO
Z0-Aew-Bz
ZO-Aew-L6
z0-ARIN-60
z0-Aew-w
ZO-JdV-£Z
ZO-AVS6
ZO-JdV-LO
z0-Jew-OE
Zo-Jew-zz
zo-Jew-K
ZO-Jew-90
ZO-gad-9Z
ZO-gad-q 6
zo qad o 6
ZO-gad-ZO
z0-tier-9z
ZO-uerlL
zo-Uer-6o
ZO-ueNo
O
V
2
a.
w
?
w
CC
D
Ci
w
of
co
N
co
U
w
co
J
cis
J
I
J
J
w
z
N
N
o:
Q
w

LO O L? O O N N M M
(•ui) jepjN punoJ j o; 44dea

to
co
co
U
W
N
ti
'J
j
N
J
NOUVIld103Hd
U? U? Un
CV N r r O O

?r

4
c

vi c
3

- c

t, :L

}

"
r cy? - ,

4 -

F

m4.

m -

t -

i-

Zooaa-LZ
ZO0aaV
ZooaaU
zooaa-co
ZDAON-9Z
ZOAON-L6
ZOAON-60
ZOAONIO
zmoo-vz
Zma096
20130-90
zOdes-0£
ZOdes-ZZ
zOdaS-v6
ZOdaS-90
Zo6ny-6Z
Zosne-?Z
ZOBnd-£6
ZOBnV-90
ZOlnr-8Z
ZOlnr-0z
ZOlnr-Z6 c
Zolnr-to
ZO-unr9Z
Zo-unrv
ZO-unr-u
ZO-unr-ZO
ZO-AeW-g
ZO-AeW-L6
ZO-ABW-60
ZO-AeW-40
ZO-iclv-£z
Zo-Jdy-66
Zo-iclv-Lo
Zo-JeWb£
Zo-JeW-ZZ
Zo-Jewl
Zo-JOW-90
ZO-gad-9Z
Zo-gad-86
ZO-ged-o
ZO-gad-ZO
Zo-uer-gZ
zo-uerlL
Z0-uer-60
zo-uer-Lo
to O LO O Lo N N M M o)
(•ui) .ia;ennpunojO o; y;dea

W)
co
U
r
N
co
C7
J
N
J
NOIIVildlOaNd
LQ U? U?
N N r r O O
zooea-LZ
zooea-66
zoosa-? t
zooea-£0
ZOAON-SZ
ZOAON-L 4
ZOAON-60
ZOAON-6o
ZO1o0-VZ
20300-9 L
ZMOO-80
Zodes-0£
ZOdes-zz
ZOdeS-4l
ZOdes-9o
Zo6nb-6Z
Zosnb-6z
ZoOny-CL
ZOOnd-90
ZOlnr-8Z
ZOlnr-OZ
ZOlnr-Z6
ZOlnr-YO
zo-unr-gz
ZO-unr, 6
ZO-unr u
ZO-unr-z0
Zo-AeW-BZ
ZO-LeW-LL
ZO-AeW-60
ZO-Ai3w-6o
zo-Jdv-ez
zo-Jdy-96
Zo-Jdb-LO
ZO-JeW-O£
ZO-JeW-ZZ
ZO-JeW-K
ZO-JOW-90
ZO-gad-9Z
ZO-ged-86
ZO-god-O6
ZO-ged-Zo
Zo-uer-c,Z
zo-Uer-L6
zo-uer-6o
zo-Uemo
O
IT
H
a
w
?
w
0
w
Of
U)
U
u?
co
C7
J
J
III
J
J
LL
z
G:
N
0
NN

Lo O LO O In N N M M
(•ui) je;eenpunoi j o; y;dea

w
rn
ti
rn
V
N
C7
J
J
NOUVIld13311d
Lq Ui Uo
N N r r O O
ZOOaa-1Z
Zooaa-u
zooaa-? 6
Zooaa-£0
ZOAON-SZ
ZOAON-L L
ZMON-60
ZOAON-W
zwotZ
ZOIoO.96
zwo-80
ZOdes-o£
ZOdes-ZZ
Zodas%
Zodes-90
ZO6nV-6Z
ZO6n`d-6Z
ZO6ntl-£4
ZOOnV-80
ZOlnr-8Z
ZOlnr-oz
Zolnrz C4
O
ZOlnr-vo N
ZO-unr-9Z w
Zo-unr-9
ZO-unr-06
Zo-unr-ZO
ZO-Aew-BZ
ZO.6eW-Lb
Zo-ABW-60
ZO-AeW-60
ZO-JdV-£Z
ZO-JdH-S ?
ZO-JdV-LO
ZO-JBW-09
Zo-Jew-ZZ
Zo-JeW-66
ZO-JBW-90
ZO-gad-9Z
ZO-gad-84
Zo-gad-oL
ZO-gad-ZO
ZO-uer-o
ZO-uerl1
Zo-uer-6o
Zo-Uemo
U') O L9 O LO N N M M O)
(-ui) je;ennpunojq o; y;doa
S
a
w
0
0
w
C3
w
w
w
rn
ti
rn
U
N
U)
W
C7
J
c
J
J
J
z
Z
0

U
cc>
v
N
N
r
J
J
NOllVlld103Hd
N N O O
zoosa-Lz
ZOODa-6?
zoosau
zooea-co
ZOAON-5Z
ZOAON-L 6
ZOAON-60
ZOAONIO
WOW
ZOPO 9 6
Zw0-so
ZOdes-O£
Zodes-ZZ
Zodos-vb
ZOdes-90
ZoBnb-6Z
ZoOnb-6Z
ZOBnV-S 6
ZOBnv-Bo
Zolnr-8Z
ZOlnr-OZ
ZOlnr-Z6
Zolnr-vo
ZO-unr9Z
ZO-unr-g6
Zo-unr u
Zo-unr-z0
ZO-ReW-sZ
ZO-6eW-L6
ZO-Aew-60
ZO-Aew-w
Zo-Jdv-CZ
ZO-AV-s L
ZO-JdH-Lo
zo-1ew-os
Zo-Jew-Zz
zo-Jew-v L
Zo-JeW-s0
Zo-gad-9Z
Zo-gad-g6
Z0- 9AZ
ZO-gad-ZO
zo-Uer-sz
zo-Uer-LL
Zo-uer-60
zo-uer-6o
O
2
H
n-
w
O
w
C3
w
Q!
U
v
N
o 04
O N
N
N
W J
v?
J
J
U -
z
0
In O u O LO N N M
(-ui) Ja;empunoJ j o; y;dea
f
LL
ti
W
Cl)
V-
N
N
J
.?i
A
III
ZO-nON-6 L
ZO-nON- L L
ZO-^ON-EO
zoioo-9z
zN3O-8 L
z0-13O-O L
ZO-10O-CO
ZO-daS-SZ
ZO-dOS-L L
ZO-deS-60
z0-deS-LO
ZO-6nV-tiZ
z0-6ny-9 L
ZO-6ny-80
ZO-6nd-LO
ZO-Inr-t,Z
zo-Inr-9 L
ZO-Inr-80 Q ti

ZO-unr-OE
N w
M
ZO-unr-ZZ
ZO-unr-yL I
Zo-unr-90
ZO-AeIN-OE
ZO-AeW-ZZ
ZO-AeW-ti L
ZO-AeIN-90
ZO-jdd-8Z
ZO-JdN-OZ
ZO-jd`d-Z L
ZO-ad`d-"b0
ZO-JeW-8Z
Zo-JeW-Oz
z0-JeW-Z L
zo-JeW-tbo
ZO-gej-VZ
ZO-gej-9 L
ZO-gel-80
zo-Uer-LE
co I- CD 0 t co N O O
(sepuJ y;dap jelem 93e}JnS

S y

--- -

Q

C

N
V
w
,T,^^
vI
0
r
CO)
J
ZO-noN-6 L
ZO-noN-LL
ZO-noN-SO
ZO-13O-9Z
ZO-10O-8 L
Zo-10O-O L
ZO-3o0-so
ZO-daS-SZ
Zo-deS-L L
Zo-daS-60
ZO-daS-Lo
ZO-BnV-trZ
ZO-6n`d-9 L
ZO-6ny-80
Zo-6nd-LO
Zo-Inr-bZ
Zo-Inr-9 L
ZO-Inr-80
ZO-unr-0£
Zo-unr-ZZ
Zo-unr-TL
ZO-unr-90
ZO-AeW-oE
ZO-AeW-ZZ
ZO-Aem L
Zo-AeW-90
Zo-jd`d-8Z
ZO jdH-OZ
ZO-ad`d-Z 6
ZO-jdV-t,0
Zo-JeW-8Z
ZO-aeW-OZ
ZO-JeW-Z L
Zo-JeW-t,O
Zo-ga.J-t,Z
ZO-gaj-9 L
ZO-gazl-80
zo-uer-LE

N
rn
U
N w
°o U)
N O
}
J
I
000 CD LLo d M N O O
(seg3ul) yldop ja;em aoe}inS
•
Q
Q)
w
M
r
N
M
r
V/
J
I'
Ih L

f
?
f

is - }
- E
?
-
t

c U

• i

r:
i
ZO-AON-6 L
ZO-noN-L L
ZO-nON-CO
ZOiOO-9Z
ZO-130-9 L
ZO-130-0 L
ZO-330-EO
ZO-d9S-SZ
ZO-d9S-L L
ZO-dOS-60
ZO-daS-60
ZO-6rnd-t,Z
ZO-6nd-9 L
ZO-6ny-90
ZO-MV-LO
ZO-Inr-•,Z
rn
ZO-Inr-9 L w

ZO-Inr-$0
o C%l
_
co
N
ZO-Unr-O$
C?
N
CO
M
ZO-unr-ZZ w
ZO-unr-tq u?
J
ZO-un r-90 I
ZO-AeW-O£
ZO-AeW-ZZ
ZO-AeW-t, L
ZO-AeW--90
ZO-jdy-8Z
ZO-jdy-OZ
ZO-jdV-Z L
ZO-jdV-t,p
ZO-jevq-8Z
7
ZO-JeIN-0(,
ZO-aeIN-Z L
ZO-juvilO
ZO-gaj-bZ
ZO-gezl-9 L
ZO-gaj-90
ZO-Uer-L£ C) C) co 1- CO 0 ? M N O O
(sayOul) yIdap jalem aOejjnS
4*
?Sz
?? '? L Dom.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell . ,
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources i-9-96
;T
Div. of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek RoadN y
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
SUBJECT: 1997 Annual Monitoring Report for Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site, Mecklenburg
County
The annual monitoring report for the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site is attached hereto. The 21 acre site
is located near highway 51 and Leitner Drive. Please refer to Figure 1 for locations.
Three sluice gates are used on the site to control water flow. Initially the gates have been open in order to
allow planted trees time to grow in upland conditions. This winter the gates were closed this winter.
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, vegetative monitoring will be conducted for three years and
hydrologic monitoring will be conducted until success is established. The results of the 1997 hydrologic
and vegetative monitoring are described in the attached report.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 209.
Sincerely,,.,-7
ZT-- ?-x
Thomas E. Devens, P.E.
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Branch
attachment
cc: Mr. David Franklin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 23402-1890
M
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ANNUAL REPORT for 1997
Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site
Mecklenburg County
Tip # R-211 DG
Project #8.U670122
Prepared by:
Permits and Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
January 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... l
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... l
2.2 Hydrologic Description ............................................................................... l
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .............................................................. 2
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 3
3.2 Vegetative Description ................................................................................ 3
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring ............................................................... 3
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Vegetation ...................................................................................................4
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 4

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ...........................................................2
tTABLE 2 -VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS-SHRUBS ........................................3
TABLE 3 - VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS-TREES ............................................3
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map ...........................................................................................................5
FIGURE 2 - Well Location Map .........................................................................................................6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site is located in Mecklenburg County. The site encompasses
approximately 21 acres and is situated near highway 51 and Leitner Drive (Figure 1).
1.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Little Sugar Creek Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation.
Monitoring of wetlands for success criteria falls under two categories: hydrology and vegetation.
The following report describes the results of the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during
1997 at the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site.
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for hydrology
states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the surface) by surface or
ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. The growing season in Mecklenburg
County begins March 22 and ends November 11. The dates marking the start and end of the
growing season were based on Table 2 of the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina (p. 61). The survey was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service. These dates
correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures will drop to 28° or lower after March 22
and before November 11. Thus the growing season is 233 days.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Nine monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and three surface water gauges were installed on site
(Figure 2). Data was collected on a daily basis. Rain data and depth to groundwater readings
were recorded by automatic monitoring wells and gauges. The monitoring wells, rain gauge, and
surface gauges were installed and began recording data on March 1, 1997.
Three sluice gates are being used to control the water levels. During 1997, the gates were
intentionally left open to allow hardwood trees and scrub-shrub vegetation an opportunity to
initially grow in upland conditions. The gates were closed to trap water in the site this winter.
1
Appendix 1 contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and surface gauge.
Precipitation events are included on each graph as bars.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
The total number of days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface was
determined for each well. This number was converted into a percentage of the 233-day growing
season. The results are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
:00 ta?r?u' >
:::.::::. :>>:>Per t€af:G-... R, :.
:::.:::::::. la:::::::::...:................
...................................................::...:......:
.::::::::::: ..::::::.:::::::::::::
.... .................. ........:...:.. ......... .........:.::.. . ......................... . . . ........ . .. I ...:.I. .. .................... ...........:.......:.
LSC-2 3.9 No
LSC-4 5.6 No
LSC-5 0.9 No
LSC-6 1.3 No
LSC-7 1.3 No
LSC-8 2.6 No
LSC-9 7.3 No
LSC-I 1 18.9 Yes
LSC-12 10.3 No
Average 5.8 No
2
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success criteria states that there must be a minimum density of 320 trees/acre of approved target
species surviving for at least three years.
3.2 Vegetative Description
The mitigation provides the following types of mitigation:
9.8 acres of Bottomland Forest
3.1 acres of Palustrine Emergent Marsh
3.2 acres of Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
0.6 acres of Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom
The site was planted in March 1997. Three monitoring plots were established, encompassing all
plant communities.
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
The initial number of trees/shrubs within each vegetation plot were counted in March 1997. The
number of trees surviving within each plot after the first growing season was counted in
September 1997. The results of the monitoring are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
TABLE 2
VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS-SHRUBS
totals/(avg)
Plot # Shrub(p) Shrub % Survival Density/acre
1 25 2 8.0% 54
1 25.0 2.0 8.0% 54
TABLE 3
VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS-TREES
totals/(avg)
Plot # Trees(p) Trees % Survival Density/acre
2 25 13 52.0% 354
3 25 19 76.0% 517
2 25.0 16.0 64.0% 435
3
t
• There were 3 vegetation plots set throughout the site.
• Plot 1: Conditions on this portion of the site appear very dry. A majority of the scrub/shrub
acreage has died.
• Plots 2 & 3: Plots have marginal success. These plots are located within the tree planting
area.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Hydrology
• The groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface from 0.9% to 18.9% of the growing
season.
• One of the nine wells (MW 11) recorded water levels within a foot of the ground surface for
at least 12.5% of the growing season.
• The site was not expected to meet hydrologic success criteria during this monitoring year.
The sluice gates were open for the majority of the growing season to allow drainage of water
on the site.
Vegetation
The average density in the scrub/shrub test plot was 54 shrubs per acre. The average density of
trees was 64.0%. This is equivalent to 435 trees/acre, greater than the 320 tree/acre minimum
success criteria.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
• The scrub-shrub area will receive supplemental plantings in the February-March 1998 time
frame.
• Continue annual monitoring of site hydrology through the growing season (March 22 to
November 11).
• Continue annual vegetative monitoring.
4

A
A

C ?

0Q
?
?
QTQ
Cn
Pod.
"'! fD
r
?
*do
arQ
Q
o Qt
o

?.
F.I.
CD
4

n

? r

(IQ

O QtQ

?-!

O

4

n
A?
O
?
TJ

CD
0
0
O
m
m
1
N
O
O
c?
O
O m
N

II n
i
o?

N

^1 '
y
.r
Im
it4
.C
n.
?
ra
i !
r
W
' n
Ch
i

i C G

z
0
t G
Hi??WAI
NO TH
D
0::: G
m m
U i
o
?I
m

Little Sugar Creek

4 ? T
S f
APPENDIX I
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
. y
Y
V
N
N
m
J
(ui) uoi}olidioaJd
f0 Lo 'ch co N .-
O
/-11
8Z.-Ol
- 8l-OL
8-Ol
8Z-6
81-6
8-6
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
08-L ?
T
OZ-L d
a
E
Ol-L ?
a?
w
H-9
OZ-9
01-9
1S-S
1Z-S
11-S
1-9
lZ-b
ll-b
l-1-
ZZ-_
o ?n o to
CD T
N N
(ui) jaloMpunoaa of y}daa
II
t
a
0
a?
m
a
41
I
C7
I
I
I
m
m
0
c

Y
d
d
V
3
N
m
J
(ui) uoijo}idioaad
co to It M N
O
LO o to o to o
I N
(ui) aalompunoig of yldap
L- ll
811
8l-Ol
8Z-6
81-n
8- ?•
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
ti
N-L rn
N-L
a
E
R
Gl-L y
d
?a
0
N-9
- OZ-9
01-9
- 18-G
- lZ-C
11-?7
lZ-r
ll-t
ZZ-=
o
N

CL
m
`m
co
v
m
O'
I
I
I
m
cu
0
S
co

Y
d
V
co
3
3
m
J
(ui) UOIIDIidioaad
co O V M N
O
O O In O In O
N
(ui) aajon+punoa0 oa yjdaa
8Z-Ol
" 8l-Ol
8-OL
8Z-6
81-6
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
n
08-L ?
T
OZ-/ d
Q
E
R
fA
w
0?,_9 0
OZ-9
Ol-9
lZ-y
?-5
lZ-tr
I_t
ZZ-C
O
N
O
r
a
m
O
a?
m
d
I
I
I
m
m
0
c

Y
as
L
V
L
m
J
(ui) uoi}o}idioaad
co to V M N
O
?n o LO o u? o
(ui) aaloMpunoia ol 41daa
/-11
K-01
.° 81-OL
8-01
8Z-6
81-6
8-6
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
n
CL
E
A
O1-L N
w
H-9
N-9
Ol-9
l?-5
lZ-9
11-5
1-y
1Z-t
11-t
1-h
ZZ-C
N
m
r
CL
a)
O
a?
m
v
a?
O'
I
I
I
m
0
Cl)
r
Y
d
L
V
L
0
a,
m
J
(ui) uoiaolidaaad
co to V co N
O
LO O in O LO
i i
(ui) J91DMpunoia of yldaa
?-ll
SZ-Ol
81-01
8-Ol
8Z-6
81-6
1 8-6
1
6Z-8
............ .
61-8
...........................
6-8
ti
Os-L rn
OZ-L m
a
E
O1-L U)
°
X-9
OZ-9
O1-9
1Z-S
lZ-S
11-9
l-S
1Z-t
11-t
l-b
ZZ-S
N N
5
t
n
a>
O
a?
m
V
I
I
I
cc
m
°
ca
w ?
Y
d
d
V
t`a Cp
m
J
(ui) uogoIidiaaad
co LO V M N
O
L o LO C, In o
7 N
(ui) jaloMpunoa0 of yjdaa
/-11
8Z-O1
81-01
- 8-OL
8Z-6
81-6
8-6
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
0?'-L m
rn
OZ-L d
CL
E
Ol-L ?
?a
0
N-9
N-9
N-9
lZ-5
ll-8
l-S
1Z-h
11-t
- l-h
ZZ
LO
N
co
t
n
m
0
m
v
d
asi
I
I
I
m
m
0
cc

Y
d
d
L
V
L
m
J
(ul) uoilolidloaJd
co LO Cl) N O
I L-tl
I 8Z-Gl
I
? 8l-Gl
i
I
? 8-Gl
I
I
I 8Z 6
I
I
I 81_6
I
I
I
I 8-6.
I
I
6Z-8
I
61-8
I
I
I
I 6-8
I ?
N-L
I
I •
OZ-L
I
I "` OL-L
r
I
N-9
I
I
OZ-9
I
I
I
Ot-9
I
I
tc-S
I
I
lZ-c
I
I
I ll-4
I
I t-y
I lZ-b
i
I
I ll-t
i
l-i
i
ZZ-c
L o U') o LO o
N N
(ui) jaloMpunoig of y}daa

L
CL
N
0
a?
co
v
N
3
N
I
I
I
?a
m
0
m
4'
Y
m
V
tv
N
m
J
(ui) uoiaoaidioaad
(O t!7 Cl) N e- O
i
I
i
i
I J
LO o LO O LO O
N
i i i
(ui) ja}ompunoa0 of yjdaa
L-ll
8Z-Ol
8l-Ol
8-Ol
8Z-6
81-6
8-6
6Z-8
61-8
6-8
0C-L
4)
OZ-L d
a
E
OL-L N
d
R
00-9
OZ-9
Ol-9
10-8
lZ-G
ll-7
l-y
lZ-t
11-t
l-t
7v _
LO
N

t
oa
a?
0
2
cc
-o
v
I
I
I
m
m
O
c
w I I
Y
d
V
? N
3 5
N
_d
J
(ul) uoijopd oaad
f0 LO M N ?- O
?Z-Ol
yl-Ol
I S-Ol
I yZ-?
I
I
I 51-6
1
I N
1 - 5-c
9Z-8
I
91-8
9-8 0
a?
LZ-L
I a
I Ll-L ?'
I ~ 3
cb 17
I
I L-L w ?
LZ-9 fl,
I E
Ll-9 v m
I L-9 a
I ?
8Z-9
I gl-G
I
I
' 8-9
I 8Z-b
I
I 8l-t
I
I
I 8-h
1 E-
I 6l-c
I
I
I - E-c
I
1 -
I -
LO O In O to O LO
N N
(ul) aajoMpunoaq of gld@a
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK SITE
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP (R-211-DA)
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
Prepared for:
N.C. Department of Transportation
1 South Wilmington St.
Ralleigh, NC 27601
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 Dale St., Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
August, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................2
II. RATIONALE .................................................4
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS ...................................... 5
Impacted Wetlands ....................................... 5.
Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded (PFO1 C) .............. 5
Palustrine open water (POW) ............................ 6
IV. MITIGATION GUIDELINES ........................................ 7
Mitigation Policy ........ 7
.................................
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA,
and Executive Order 11990 .............. 7
FWS Policy ........... 7
..................................
FHWA Policy ............................................ 7
Mitigation Sequencing ...... 8
...............................
Avoidence .............................................. 8
Minimization 8
............................................
Compensatory Mitigation ................................... 8
V. MITIGATION SITE .............................................. 9
Project Overview ......................................... 9
Existing Conditions ........................................ 9
Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ................... 9
Soils ............................................11
Plant Communities .................................. 11
Existing Hydrology .................................. 16
Wetlands ........................................16
Hazardous Materials ................................. 16
VI. MITIGATION PLAN ........................................... 21
Wetland Restoration Modeling ............................... 21
Hydrological Modeling ............................... 21
HEC-1 Model Description ........................ 21
HEC-1 Results Pre-restoration ..................... 21
DRAINMOD .......................................23
Model Results Pre-restoration ..................... 24
Reference Forest Ecosystem Modeling .................... 24
Wetland Restoration Methodology ............................ 27
Hydrological Restoration .............................. 27
DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration ................ 27
Plant Community Restoration ........................... 30
Planting Plan ................................. 32
Bottomland Hardwood Forest ..................... 32
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub .......................... 35
Palustrine Emergent ............................ 35
Planting Program ................................... 35
Wetland Soil Restoration ................................... 36
VII. MONITORING PLAN .......... ............................... 37
Hydrology Monitoring ..................................... 37
Hydrology Success Criteria ................................. 37
Vegetation ............................................37
Vegetation Success Criteria ................................ 38
Report Submittal ........................................38
Contingency ........................................... 39
VIII. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION ............................. 40
Bottomland, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFOIC) ................. 40
IX. DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................... 44
X. REFERENCES ................................................45
APPENDICES
1. Hazardous Materials Review, Charlotte Outer Loop, Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................. A
2. Hydrogeological Site Assessment For Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................................ B
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location Map ........................................... 3
Figure 2. Site Location Map ....................................... 10
Figure 3. Topography and Spot Elevations ............................. 12
Figure 4. Soils Map ............................................. 13
Figure 5. Hydric Soils ............................................ 14
Figure 6. Existing Plant Community .................................. 15
Figure 7. Groundwater Flow - April 5, 1995 ............................ 17
Figure 8. Depth to Groundwater - April 5, 1995 ......................... 18
Figure 9. Surface Hydrology ....................................... 19
Figure 10. Monitoring Wells ....................................... 22
Figure 1 1 . Site Alteration Plan ...................................... 28
Figure 12. Typical Control Structure .................................. 29
Figure 13. Planting Plan ........................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Wetland Impact - Types & Acreage ............................ 5
Table 2. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................ 24
Table 3. Reference Forest Ecosystems
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Plots Summary (Canopy Species) ...... 26
Table 4. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................ 30
Table 5. Planting Regime - Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site ................ 34
Table 6. Expected Functions in Impacted Wetland Classes ................. 41
IV
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK SITE
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP (R-211 DA)
MECKENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) constructed a new controlled-
access, multi-lane divided roadway from NC 51 to Rea Road. This 5.4 mile roadway (R-
0211 DA) was opened in 1994 and will be incorporated into the 16.6 mile southern segment
of the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-021 1). The proposed action is included in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Comprehensive Plan and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan, and will provide a necessary connector through a rapidly developing urban area. The
plan has been adopted by the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the Towns of
Matthews, Mint Hill, and Pineville.
Wetlands within the R-021 1 DA corridor were found to be palustrine in nature, as defined by
Cowardin et aL (1979). Wetland systems vary in vegetation composition depending upon
hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. Approximately 11.1 acres (4.5 hectares)
of wetlands were impacted by the construction (U.S. COE Permit 199200013).
A comprehensive mitigation plan has been developed for a 21-acre (8.5 hectare) site adjacent
to Little Sugar Creek in southwestern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The mitigation site
is bound by Little Sugar Creek to the west, Highway NC 51 to the south, and a shopping
center/small hospital complex to the east.
The project team made detailed analyses of existing ecological and hydrological conditions to
provide reasonable assurance of project success. Using surface water modeling (HEC-1) and
subsurface water modeling (DRAINMOD), it has been predicted that once site alterations are
completed, wetland hydrology (12.5% of the growing season) can be achieved on 16.1 acres
(6.5 hectares). Reference forest data coupled with recent literature sources were used to
predict appropriate vegetation plantings. Based on analysis of all data, 9.8 acres (4.0
hectares) will be returned as bottomland forest wetland, 3.2 acres (1.3 hectares) will be shrub-
scrub wetland, and 3.1 acres (1.2 hectares) will be emergent marsh.
This mitigation plan provides for restoration/creation of contiguous natural wetlands, which
will ensure the perpetual maintenance of characteristic wetland functions in this region.
I. INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) constructed a new controlled-
access, multi-lane divided roadway from NC 51 to Rea Road (Figure 1). This 5.4 mile roadway
(R-0211 DA) was opened in 1994 and will be incorporated into the 16.6 mile southern segment
of the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-021 1). The proposed action is included in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Comprehensive Plan and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan, and will provide a necessary connector through a rapidly developing urban area. The
plan has been adopted by the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the Towns of
Matthews, Mint Hill, and Pineville.
This report examines wetland encroachment and mitigation strategy for dealing with
anticipated wetland losses associated with development of R-21 1 DA (hereinafter referred to
as "Charlotte Outer Loop"). The information contained herein is intended to supplement and
support NCDOT's Section 404 permit and for 401 Water Quality Certification. The Section
404 permit application for R-0211 DA was submitted on September 16, 1991 and issued June
05, 1992. The mitigation plan outlines a method to replace wetland functions lost as a result
of this section the Charlotte Outer Loop, through compensatory mitigation.
2
k
1
C.)
�U
Cl) co '
(j)0�N
O
a)
CL
L
LO
T
C6
�
T
++
cn cz
r
CY)
>�
W
W
i
b0
U
O
O
q
w
a
A
m
U
~ O
vU
a. oC
o
(n
a)
cm Z
C
< a)
�-oUo
Q
ZO0"U
oo rna
��
�)
U
Q
(10,
UZ
O�9
XY
0OT—
0
CZ
c
O
•
4000,
cm
L
#
�
A
Gl /
N
`,.�
♦ ♦
Ni
Q
AAl
n -W.
/
!J
/+�
7ANNy
O

II. RATIONALE
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of
the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is primarily
responsible for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. The
COE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands are described as:
those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR
328.3(b), (1986)).
The COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination (DOA 1987).
Construction limits along the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop corridor were field checked for
jurisdictional wetlands in July 1991 by representatives from the COE, NCDOT, and N.C.
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). For the purpose of this assessment, the
corridor was assumed to be 300 feet in width. The entire alignment was walked and all
systems were evaluated as to jurisdictional status. Based on field evaluation and review of
proposed construction plans, wetland impacts were calculated. The mitigation strategy
proposed herein provides for compensation for these impacts.
It was assumed that former wetlands which appeared to be actively cultivated or utilized for
the production of farm commodities are "prior converted" (PC) croplands, and not subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the CWA. PC cropland is defined as
"wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove
excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent they no
longer exhibit typical wetland functions and values" (Section 512.15 of the National Food
Security Act Manual, August 1988). During the July 1991 field assessment, potential PC lands
were discussed and evaluated.
4
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
Impacted Wetlands
Wetlands within the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop corridor were found to be palustrine in
nature, as defined by Cowardin etas. (1979). Wetland systems vary in vegetation composition
depending upon hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. Approximately 11.1 acres
(ac) (4.5 hectares (ha)) of wetlands were impacted by the construction (U.S. COE Permit
199200013). Wetland types and associated acreage within the construction limits are listed
in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Wetland Impact - types & acreage
Palustrine forested Open Water
TOTAL
Segment broad-leaved deciduous (POW)
ac/ha
(PFO1 C)
McAlpine Creek 2.8 0.1 2.9/1.2
McMullen Creek 5.7 0 5.7/2.3
unnamed tributaries 0.1 2.4 2.5/1.0
PROJECT TOTALS (ac/ha) 8.6/3.5 2.5/1.0 11.1/4.5
Although no quantitative methodology was employed to determine values of affected systems,
general wetland functions were evaluated based on best professional judgement using
parameters described in hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment technology (Brinson
1993, ESI 1994b). The following types have been identified:
Palustrine forested. broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO1 C
Impacted bottomland wetlands are concentrated within the floodplain of McAlpine Creek,
unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek, and McMullen Creek. Approximately 8.6 ac (3.5 ha)
of bottomland wetlands were impacted at these stream crossings by project construction of
the R-021 1 DA. Soil types occurring in these alluvial systems consist primarily of Monacan
loams (F/uvaquentic Eutrochrepts). These soils are somewhat poorly drained and
characteristically found in small streams within the region. Characteristic canopy species
include sweet gum (Liquidambar styracifiua), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern cottonwood
(Popuius deitoides) willow oak (Quercus phe/%s), tulip popular (Liriodendron tu/ipifera), river
birch (Betuia nigra), black gum (Nyssa syivatica), American sycamore (Piatanus occidentaiis)
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica). Understory species include canopy species along
with slippery elm (Uimus rubra), red mulberry (Morus rubra), ironwood (Carpinus caroiiniana),
and black willow (Saiix nigra). Groundcover is usually sparse, relegated to pockets of lizard's
5
tail (Saururus cernuus), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areolata) around canopy gaps.
The hydrologic pathway for this community is primarily seasonal flooding from adjacent stream
channel flow and, to a lesser extent, upland runoff. Due to their landscape position,
bottomland communities act as major receptors of upland runoff and are therefore functionally
valuable ecosystems (Cooper et aL 1986,1. Important biogeochemical functions performed
by floodplains which dissect urban/agricultural regions include removal of elements and
compounds, retention of particulates, and nutrient cycling (Brinson et al. 1994). However, the
ability of these communities to remove and transform excess nutrient loads may have been
jeopardized by long-term land use practices and channelization. These bottomland systems
also act as buffers during times of flooding, reducing runoff rates and allowing for absorption
and infiltration (high value for flood-flow alteration).
Palustrine open water (POW)
Approximately 2.6 ac. (2.5 ha) of open water areas were impacted by Charlotte Outer Loop.
Open water systems include the stream area of McAlpine Creek and McMullen Creek. These
water systems are functionally connected, and are the driving force for the wetland areas
occurring within the floodplain of the two creeks. Therefore, impacts to these systems are
reflected in the adjacent wetland areas.
6
IV. MITIGATION GUIDELINES
Mitigation Policy
Mitigation for wetland losses from the proposed project is hereby recommended in compliance
with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), mitigation policy
mandates articulated in the COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA; Page and Wilcher
1990), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 (1977)), FWS mitigation policy directives (46
FR 7644-7663 (1981)), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stepdown procedures
(23 CFR 777.1-777.11). Mitigation has been defined in National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or
eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment (40 CFR 1508.22 (a-e)).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of "waters of the United
States." Practicable alternatives must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can
be discussed.
FWS policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses,
the FWS recommends that mitigation efforts be correlated with value and scarcity of the
habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four Resource Categories based on decreasing
importance and value, with subsequent decreases in mitigation planning objectives (46 FR
7657-7658). Forested wetlands within the project corridor would be considered Resource
Category 2 or 3 (high to moderate value) requires a mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat
(compensation through replacement of lost habitat value). Methods used to achieve this goal
include: the physical modification of replacement habitat (creation), restoration or rehabilitation
of previously altered habitat, increased management of similar replacement habitat so that in-
kind value of the lost habitat is replaced, or a combination of these measures.
FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harm
to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded highway construction. A sequencing
(stepdown) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible. First,
consideration must be given to providing for mitigation within highway right-of-way limits,
generally through enhancement, restoration, or creation. Mitigation employed outside of the
highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. Measures
should be designed "to reestablish, to the extent reasonable, a condition similar to that which
would have existed if the project were not built" (23 CFR 777.9(b)).
7
Mitigation Sequencing
Existing policy guidelines on mitigation sequencing have been employed for this project.
Measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, and eliminate wetland impacts have been employed
where feasible. NCDOT's efforts at impact avoidance and minimization are more fully
addressed in the September 16, 1991 permit application.
Avoidance -Total avoidance was not a logical solution to eliminating impacts associated with
the proposed project area, as the alignment cannot be shifted to avoid all wetlands. In
addition, the economic and social costs associated with a "no action" alternative are
prohibitive. Current and future traffic problems are not resolved by avoiding needed
improvements.
Although construction impacted approximately 11 ac. (4.5 ha) of wetlands, every effort has
been made to avoid wetland communities whenever possible. Wetland crossings were
strategically designed to occur at narrow portions of creek floodplains in order to avoid
extensive wetland fringe areas.
Minimization - Impacts on wetlands adjacent to the corridor were minimized by implementing
erosion control measures such as seeding slopes, installation of silt fences, and the proper use
of sediment basins. Fill slopes through wetland areas were steepened to the maximum
practical (2:1), and lateral drainage ditches will be eliminated where feasible in order to reduce
wetland impacts. McAlpine Creek and McMullen Creek crossings were designed as close as
possible to perpendicular and are located in the narrowest available portions of the floodplain.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed for all unavoidable impacts resulting from construction
of the Charlotte Outer Loop. Primary consideration has been given to in-kind, on-site
replacement in keeping with FHWA stepdown procedures and other existing agency policies.
In all cases, replacement of lost wetland functions and values is considered paramount.
8
V. MITIGATION SITE
Project Overview
A 21 ac. (8.5 ha) site adjacent to Little Sugar Creek in southwestern Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina has been selected as mitigation for 11.1 ac. (4.5 ha) wetland impacts
associated with construction of the Charlotte Outer Loop. The mitigation site is bound by
Little Sugar Creek to the west, Highway NC 51 to the south, and a shopping center/small
hospital complex to the east (Figure 2).
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) personnel visited the mitigation site in March and April 1995
to evaluate existing conditions, confirm Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil
mapping, map hydric soils, conduct a hazardous waste review and to model site hydrology.
In addition, remaining forested areas on the site as well as other forested areas within the
region were surveyed, sampled, and described to establish a reference forest ecosystem (RFE)
for restoration planning. Soils samples were evaluated to correlate reference soil systems to
the wetland restoration area.
Mitigation site hydrology was modeled for pre-mitigation and post-mitigation hydrological
inputs and outputs. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit assisted with this effort by utilizing HEC-1 model
(DOA 1993) to predict surface water conditions. A series of drainage swales and control
structures were designed to accommodate surface runoff. The groundwater model,
DRAINMOD was employed to predict the influence of various site interventions affecting
restoration of subsurface hydrology.
Existing Conditions
Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Little Sugar Creek Site is located in southeastern Mecklenburg County, approximately 600
feet (ft) (183 meters (m)) west of the Charlotte Outer Loop alignment and adjacent to NC 51.
The site consists of approximately 21 ac. (8.5 ha) of farm/pasture lands adjacent to Little
Sugar Creek.
The mitigation site occurs within the Charlotte Belt which is composed of igneous and
metamorphic rocks covered by regolith consisting of weathered in place residium and soil.
Based on the geologic map of North Carolina, bedrock at the mitigation site is metamorphic
mafic rock described as metagabbro, metadiorite, and mafic plutonic complexes (DNR 1985).
Field activities revealed that bedrock on site is overlain by 10 to 15 ft. (3-4.5 m) of overburden
consisting of a clayey soil at the surface underlain by saprolitic soils. The landscape is
characterized by low floodplain, with clay ridges, small depressions, and relic stream channels.
9
Elevations in the immediate area of the site range from 550 ft. 0 68 m) above mean sea level
(MSL) along upland ridges to 535 ft. (163 m) MSL along Little Sugar Creek (Figure 3).
It appears that most of the Little Sugar Creek Site is a relict floodplain system affected by
ditching, channelization, and surrounding urbanization. Remnants of the original alluvial forest
are evident along two drainageway systems in the northern half of the site.
Soils
Soils have been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA 1980,
Figure 4). The site is dominated by the Monacan Association. Soil textures range from loam
to sandy loam of moderate permeability. In an undrained condition, the seasonal high water
table varies along the topographic gradient from surface saturation to two feet below soil
surface. The soil and landform gradient suggests that natural forested communities which
existed prior to agricultural conversion included mesic oak/hickory forest and bottomland
hardwood forest.
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (USDA, 1987).
Monacan soils are non-hydric soils that can have hydric inclusions. Hydric soil boundaries on
the site were flagged in April 1995, by ESI personnel. Subsequently, NCDOT personnel
mapped hydric soil limits using GPS technology. Figure 5 depicts the hydric/nonhydric soil
boundaries identified on the site. (USDA 1980, USDA 1987).
The channelization of perennial streams on site and the construction of new roads have altered
the site's hydrologic regime. Therefore hydric conditions in upper soil horizons are limited.
In addition, artificial drainage and agricultural production most likely promoted a reduction in
organic matter content through accelerated decomposition and harvesting.
Plant Communities
A majority of the Little Sugar Creek Site is characterized by pasture/successional lands (18.8
ac/7.6 ha) which do not support distinct natural communities (Figure 6). These areas support
a variety grasses, (such as Digitaria sp., Paspaium sp., Loiium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), and
lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.) along with intermittent early successional vegetation.
Remnants of the natural alluvial forest community are found only in the northern portion of the
site. This forested community comprises approximately 2.2 ac. (0.9 ha) of the total 21 ac.
(8.5 ha) mitigation site. Characteristic species of the community are cottonwood (Popuius
deitoides), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), box elder (Acer negundo), American sycamore,
tulip poplar, and sweet gum. Several remaining cottonwoods with a diameter-breast-height
(DBH) exceeding 25 inches (64 centimeter) have been documented on the mitigation site.
11
•

s?
y ? f
-;e
tt
}?CC Y.
weC

}G
Yj G

s?
CC
1C

.t `

` S y?
1
f

?'
tt
}?CC Y.
weC

}G
Yj G

s?
CC
1C

.t `

` S y?
1
f

?'
tt
}?CC Y.
weC

}G

•
•
,I
;I
N
1
,
Project Boundary
i
Open Waters
Hydric Soils
?? Figure: 5
? Environmental HYDRIC SOILS
Services, Inc. NCDOT
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: July 1995
14
0
0 0

Existing Hydrology
Regionally, the Charlotte Belt is comprised of igneous and metamorphic rocks covered by
regolith consisting of weathered in place residium. A thin veneer of alluvium has been
deposited on stream floodplains. The regolith varies in thickness from less than one foot to
greater than 30 ft.(0.3-9.1 m). Groundwater within the regolith moves through substrate
pores from topographic high points to lower gradients following slope contours (Figures 7 and
8).
Hydrology at the mitigation site is controlled by several factors: the relatively shallow depth
of bedrock, a channelized perennial stream which bisects the southern portion of the site, and
two storm sewer drain outfalls. The channelized stream and the storm sewer outfalls receive
storm water drainage from a near by shopping center. Storm sewer outfalls discharge onto
the northern portion of the site, where water is retained in elongated depressions; water leaves
the site via infiltration and evaporation (Figure 9). Due to anthropogenic disturbances
associated with Little Sugar Creek, hydrological input from the creek is not a major factor.
Wetlands
In June 1994 NCDOT requested a jurisdictional determination of the site from the COE. Mr.
Steve Lund, COE Asheville field office, conducted the wetland survey and concluded that
jurisdictional wetlands were not present on site.
Hazardous Materials
A Hazardous Materials Review was conducted in May 1995 (Appendix 1). The purpose of this
investigation was to identify potential sources of environmental concerns or hazards which
may be present on the Little Sugar Creek tract or adjacent properties. The area of
investigation ranged from 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer (km)) for items of lower hazard concerns to
1.0 mile (1.6 km) for items of higher concern. Lower hazard concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C
small quantity generators, transporters, underground storage tanks (USTs), above-ground
storage tanks (ASTs), and other entities. Items of higher concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C
treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs). The low and high hazard concern designated
items are defined as such from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards.
The efforts performed at this site consisted of (1) a regulatory agency database review, (2)
a physical inspection of the subject site, and (3) a physical reconnaissance of adjacent
properties. The data were evaluated to ascertain whether the site and adjacent properties are
currently or have previously been subject to the use, storage, transportation, and/or disposal
of hazardous/toxic wastes and/or materials.
16
v
lel
H .'
?.,, •pN
?I
N
O
54 . 0 ? O
00 W \
+ cn N N
O ? O
\ Q?
ODC)o
? O
cn
00 ® N O .
+ cn I o NO TH
G7 Oo o OD
O N Q?
W co
C O +
(D Z O
n
co
O fl OOH
rri
cQ CD (D
C) c r
Q CD
???
0
Z CD
o CD
+?
C) CD Ln
O O• `?? Ul
8, 50
Cfl
Q ,
Ln
{
S36, O
OW
00
\iN
co
o v o o
0 0 °
? • cu ? Cn
W Z W
? c Im*1
rn ?
N •
o D O
3 Cn '*1
0 G7
N C
W ?
O m
V
OD
1
1
t
N •VV ?,
N V
+
O p.
O IV
00 ED
0 441
O cD
W O
00
O
i
i
i
00
O W
O W
\ °' °OQ ! o NO TH
-? 0 00
(D ?.
0 C)
(D ?
i
O
c-I m CD
C
O Z
O ?
c Q cl)
r- m
O o
O O
Z -Q
CD
o N
C) CD ° N
0 0
U,
?• V
Q
to 00
cD
Ul
o°
rn
o?
\N
W
c0
O
o p O ED
R
N N
z c? W 00
G7 x C m 9
O N r
O 0 N
O
o D O _
70 S Cn TI
n
Q C
W
O M
00
W
n
0
z
0
c
M
z
M
M
3 1 D
I I
n
O
O
-1
{
?t
fj
i
(D
^
0 \
J
•
``
J
m o

on
n
co m M

O
O (D O
-
X

^ ? lV C)
Q
Q
O 0
?•

1
4111 i + ) l • 616.E j
i 1
{ 1 • ata ?' ik;? i ?? "
• a4? ? iii' ' ? j
s r,
• IMIt :C ? ? I ?,i
i
r
' • sa • 66u
"eua ? ? 6161 ? `.
i
u '
r '
? t
R? ° ?'? • and \1
? a
r
_ t
- .. 616:1 ,\ \t
1 ;
.. • 6146 _ .i 1'. -14,:
0 Q ?
?
ra
O
3 n
.r 1
W z <,
O
c?
C m
rn

o
D
co O
O
S
0 Ir
C)
C -^ "
O m
• ?• 7--L-L-1
NQd 61461 6K? .
Regulatory data indicated no registered USTs located within the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Fourteen UST sites and five leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) have been documented
within a 0.5-mile (0.8 km) radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract. These sites are located north,
west, and south of the subject property. (The location of these sites are illustrated in Appendix
1, Figure 2.0.)
The site was inspected for visible evidence of hazardous or toxic materials, wastes, or other
potential sources of contamination. No obvious evidence of abandoned structures/equipment,
air emissions, industrial activities, waste water discharge, distressed vegetation, agricultural
wastes (pesticides/herbicides dumping), ASTs, USTs, or transformers was observed. Minor
incidents of debris were observed along the road and creek.
One soil sample was taken along a drainageway which bisects the southern third of the site
and was analyzed by EPA Method 9071 (oil and grease). The analytical results indicate this
sample contained elevated levels of oil and grease; however, these levels did not exceed the
action level as outlined by DEM. Additionally, a water sample was taken during a stormwater
event and analyzed for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and volatiles
by EPA Methods 5030, 9071, 601, and 602, respectively. Results were reported as below
detection limits for each method. (See Appendix 1 for laboratory results.) While extensive
stormwater run-off from parking areas is common in commercially developed areas, it is logical
to assume this site has the potential for impact by constituents contained in the run-off.
In summary, based on the information obtained during these reviews, it appears that a low to
moderate potential exists for identified conditions which may impose a environmental liability
on the subject properties. Additional efforts at Little Sugar Creek related to determining the
potential impact from stormwater run-off and the five (5) leaking UST incidents identified on
adjacent properties may provide further insight.
20
VI. MITIGATION PLAN
Wetland Restoration Modeling
A number of mitigation design studies have been utilized for restoration planning on the Little
Sugar Creek Site. These include hydrogeological modeling, development of available water
budgets, soil-site studies, Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) characterizations (EPA 1990),
and wetland functional evaluations.
Hydrological Modeling
A hydrogeological site assessment was conducted to determine the existing conditions and
wetland restoration potential of the subject property. A detailed report of hydrogeological
modeling (DRAINMOD) and hydrological modeling (HEC-1) procedures, including results are
included in Appendix 2. The assessment included the installation of a series of exploratory
soil borings, the conversion of the soil borings into observation wells (Figure 10), and water
level measurements over an approximately one month period. Hydraulic conductivity testing
of the saturated zone and review of existing data for the region were also performed and
incorporated into the hydrological model.
Early in the investigation the data indicated that storm water runoff would be the major
hydrological input into this system. Therefore it was determined that a surface water model
would need to be coupled to the groundwater model in order to forecast the probabilities of
achieving the wetland hydrology criteria. It was decided that HEC-1 I (COE, 1993), a flood
hydrograph model, was the most appropriate tool for addressing surface water concerns.
HEC-1 Model Description
The HEC-1 model is designed to simulate the surface runoff response of a water body from
precipitation by expressing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic
components. Each component specifies a particular characteristice through a mathematical
relationship which describes the associated physical process. The model results are analyzed
to provide hydrographs at desired locations within the drainage basin (Appendix 2).
HEC-1 Results Pre-restoration
HEC-1 simulations assumed that the drainage basins for the northern pod (Site 1) and the
southern pod (Site 2) consisted of 44.5 ac. (18.0 ha) and 82 ac. (33.2 ha), respectively. Both
sites were modeled for a 2-year and 50-year 24 hour (hr) storm event. Precipitation for a 2-
year storm event was modeled using 3.26 inches (in) (8.3 centimeter (cm)) and 3.36 in. (8.5
cm) for the respective sites. Model precipitation for the 50-year storm event was 7.3 in. (18.5
cm) for both sites. The model predicted runoff would peak at 750 minutes (12.5 hr) for the
2 and 50-year storm event at Site 1. Site 2 was predicted to peak at 780 minutes (13 hr) for
21
N
N
'A v
t m Z
? ?N F Z
D
O
m r? v g s®
0p0 F O p+U? 0
O D N -i
-0 O
+ •00
® O V O Y
a a
`°• m m
? z
rn ; x
' o
Z m
f F
fn 0
F
t > r r ~ -1
i OI 00 F-
00+ .. v ® t n t
S 0 0' 1 o° NO TH
N pp
. O U? O W ?0 ®® m
4 N ?
- ? U O
n l / rn
L
r-
mcDO
Z_
C7 C C
p (D -* O
Q CD
? r0
C) o
Z D C _
o CD 3E
m ! m
?- +
Lo _+; N g
r
?4 .16
C7 (gyp o
Q
o
l'
t ;
m
.. F
o
s ?
W p v =
® O V
O
vA_+ O rn m
? F
M N I
rrn w pN ?.
to O
v
Q p
CD' co v
7 0
rr m
W z c?
O 00 •?
C -
(D
G7 p
3 UI ?I
G7
Q) C
W ?
O r1
O
O
the two model events. Runoff rates were predicted to be 64 and 163 cubic feet per second
(cfs) for the two model parameters at Site 1. Runoff for Site 2 was predicted to be 135 and
223 cfs for the selected parameters.
Outflow from Site 1 peaked at 810 minutes (13.5 hr) for both the 2 and 50-year storms, with
flow rates of 7 cfs ( 0.2 m3/S) and 54 cfs (1.5 m3/S) respectively. Outflow from Site 2 peaked
at 810 minutes, with rates of 54 cfs 0.5 m3/S) and 87 cfs (2.5 m3/S), respectively, for the
2 and 50-year storms. Storage at Site 1 peaked at 870 minutes (14.5 hr) with 5.2 acre-ft
(6414 m3) for a 2 year storm and at 810 minutes with 10.6 acre-ft (13,075 m3) for a 50 year
storm. Storage for Site 2 peaked at 810 minutes with 6.2 acre-ft (7648 m3 ) and 8.1 acre-ft
(9991 m3 ) for a 2 and 50-year storm, respectively. The summarized results of the HEC-1
simulation are presented in Appendix 2.
Based on the results of the model, runoff ceased at the same time as the rainfall (at 24 hrs),
but the model predicted that outflow from the sites would continue for another 24 hrs before
ceasing, for a total retention time of approximately 48 hours.
DRAINMOD
The groundwater modeling software selected as most appropriate for simulating shallow
subsurface conditions and groundwater behavior was DRAINMOD. This model was developed
by Dr. R.W. Skaggs of North Carolina State University (NCSU). The model was originally
developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water table control
systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD was subsequently modified
for application to wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulated the number of times
that the water table rose above a specified depth and remained there for a given duration
during the growing season. The model results can then be analyzed to determine if wetland
criteria are satisfied during the growing season, on average, more than half of the years
modeled (usually 30 years).
DRAINMOD predicts water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two
drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table
depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long
periods of climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range
of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982),
Ohio (Skaggs et a/., 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et a/., 1985; Fouss et a/., 1987), Florida (Rogers,
1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva, 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et a/., 1987) indicate that
the model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates.
DRAINMOD has been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et a/. (1993).
23
Model Results Pre-restoration
Soil input parameters for DRAINMOD were calculated by the NRCS model, DMSOIL (Baumer
and Rice 1988), using soil texture data from samples collected on site. Soil hydraulic
conductivity values used in DRAINMOD simulations were determined from on-site slug test
data. Since shallow bedrock depths ranged from 7 to 10 ft. (2.1 to 3 m) depth, an
impermeable layer was set at 94.5 in. (240 cm) for the simulation. Depth of depressional
storage was selected to be 1.6 in. (4 cm). The wetland hydrology criteria used in the
simulation was saturation within 12 in. (30 cm) of the surface for 26 days (12.5 % of the
growing season, set as 21 March to 15 October). Simulation were conducted for the time
period 1950 to 1985 based on climatological records for Charlotte, North Carolina for those
years.
The DRAINMOD simulations indicated that the subject property under existing conditions
would meet wetland hydrology criteria of saturation within 30 cm (12 in) of the surface for
at least 26 days, for 18 of the 36 years simulated (Table 2).
TABLE 2
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatological Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Records used Criteria Wetland
Radius in Simulation (12.5 % of Hydrological
Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
200 m 90 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continous 18 of 36
days
200 m 120 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continous 18 of 36
days 1 11
Reference Forest Ecosystem Modeling
In order to restore or create a forested wetland for mitigation purposes, a reference community
endpoint needs to be established. According to Mitigation Site Type Classification (MiST)
guidelines (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a Reference
Forest Ecosystem (RFE) in soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs are composed of relatively
undisturbed woodlands on/near the mitigation site which support soil, landform, and
24
hydrological characteristics that restoration activities are attempting to emulate. Although
selection of the RFEs is determined by soil, hydrologic, and landform parameters, there is
much variation within local forested areas that may not be represented in the sample plots.
Nearly all potential RFE sites selected for this study have been impacted in the past by
anthropogenic disturbances, and the species composition of the plots should be considered
as a minimum starting point in restoration procedures. Therefore, RFE information, when
incorporated into a community restoration plan, should be modified based on community
information obtained from other available resources. Reference forest data utilized in
restoration planning have been modified, where appropriate, to emulate steady state
community structure as described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Three RFE areas were identified to characterize the bottomland hardwood forest restoration
areas. Two plot locations are situated within the northern section of the mitigation site and
one in the floodplain of Long Creek approximately 600 ft. (183 ha) southwest of Beatties Ford
Road. These forest sites were sampled using 0.20-ac. (0.08 ha) circular plots (standard
forestry methodology). Plots were randomly established within forested areas supporting
target landform, soil, and hydrological characteristics in an effort to characterize the expected
steady-state composition of the mitigation site after restoration. Ecologists identified and
counted all species of trees (greater than 20 feet (6.1 m) in height); the diameter breast height
(DBH) of each tree was measured from which basal area coverage was calculated. Importance
values (IV) (Brower et al. 1990) were later calculated for the dominance. Composition of
shrub and ground cover strata were also recorded and plants identified to species. Sampling
efforts were concentrated within canopy layers to identify tree species to be chosen for later
restoration planting. Importance values for tree species within bottomland hardwood forest
sample plots is depicted in Table 3.
Bottomland forest canopies on Monacan soils are dominated by tulip poplar (IV = 55%), river
birch (IV = 43%), sweet gum ( IV = 42 %), and red maple (IV = 40%) (Table 3). To a
lesser extent, a mixture of American sycamore (IV = 30%), silver maple (IV = 19%), eastern
cottonwood (IV = 19%), box elder, black gum, willow oak (Quercus phe/%s), and green ash
are also found. Disturbance seems to have increased the occurrence of tulip poplar and the
maturation of several eastern cotton woods in this area.
Based on available information, other species may have occurred within the system before
long-term disturbance. However, these species were not found in RFE plots or adjacent areas.
Other potential members of the bottomland forest community include cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxiil, and American elm (Uimus americana) (Schafale
and Weakley 1990).
25
U)
E
d
U)
N
N
O
M W
W
J d
H U.
d
V
c
to
L
to
tU
w
N
d
N
CL
N
CL
O
c
to
U
L
E
7
y
N
aO
f+
(n
(U
16.
O
LL
M
O
O
3
m
c
R
E
O
a?
O
m
tv

c
7
O
O
M
M
N
N
to
M
O
0)
O

C >
E
tU
0 O
>
>
?

0

N .-

II
to tv O O O N O .- O O U
U
to
tm
co

0

r, M O

O
4) o Ci C') O 06 O trjM- NN O 0 0 00
O w
U
O
' c rn d rn rn rn rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'a a

LL
v d

7
M M
t\
CD q c) CO t.0 0 0 M
t7 O
CD
LL w
c ?•
c
it to W
d C N M N N M M N N •-
L c a
CLt
o
(D
to M I- CO N d• to M O O

to
N O
•-
O
O
O O

w
O y
to
LO
`
LO
.-
r
N
r
N
M
^ O

E =o II
w
z
co C13

C
U) ti m ° to
i
v O a C co
U
C j C Q O O O 4
N y y
c j y h N
y o C
m m v Q

O
Q Q Q Co -t v Z F-
26
Wetland Restoration Methodology
Hydrological Restoration
The Little Sugar Creek floodplain has been influenced by numerous anthropogenic activities
within the recent past. These activities have reduced or eliminated hydrological and
biochemical functions of the floodplain. Restoration of these floodplain functions will be
provided by: hydrological inputs in the form of storm water flow from a nearby shopping mall;
and grading a major portion of the mitigation site. Recontouring/grading the site will remove
spoil piles and establish several small pools to capture and mitigate storm water flow. Water
flow will be directed through the site via a series of inter-connecting swales. As the swales
reach capacity, water will discharge onto adjacent terraces, thereby uniformly saturating or
inundating these areas (Figure 11). In addition, three water control structures (Figure 12) will
be employed to increase and control hydroperiod.
The site has been segmented into two pods based on perennial stream location, storm sewer
outfalls from a nearby shopping mall, and deed restrictions. The northern pod is approximately
12 ac. (4.9 ha) in size. Proposed for this pod is one entry pool, one entry/exit pool, one exit
pool, and two water control structures. Typical relief within the pod from normal surface
water elevation to top of terrace will be 1.5 ft. (0.45 m). The southern pod, approximately
3.0 ac. 0.2 ha) will consist of a small entre pool and exit pool with a water control structure.
Typical relief within this pod from normal surface water elevation will be 2.0 ft. (0.6 m). Pools
within each pod are interconnected via shallow swales. Swale depth ranges from 1.0 ft (0.3
m) in the northern pod to 2.0 ft. (0.6 m) in the southern pod.
The installation of pools, swales, and terraces will restore typical topography relief found in
piedmont bottomland communities and provide suitable structural support for community
diversity. In addition, stormwater runoff quality will improve due to increase resident time
(Chan et a/. 1982) which allows for increased plant uptake of minerals (Guntenspergen et a/.
1989).
DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration
DRAINMOD simulations of the subject property followed alteration by grading and redirecting
the surface drainage to maximize retention time on site. The simulations forecast the
achievement of wetland hydrology criteria within approximately 16 ac. for 34 out of 36 years
(Table 4). The model forecast that ground water was present within 12 in. (30 cm) of the
surface for as much as 209 consecutive days. Based upon these simulations it is reasonable
to expect that the site will meet the wetland hydrology criteria following alteration. Additional
depressional storage can be achieved by scarifying the soils when planting specimens. Plant
specimens should spaced at intervals to allow access by a tractor. Tractor access will allow
27
546
544 .........
542
540
538
536
534
532 ........................... ........................ ....................................
530 ...............................................................................................
North Carolina TYPICAL CONTROL STRUCTURE Project: ER94018.5 Figure: 12
Department of Little Sugar Creek Drawn By: JM Scale: As Shown
Mecklenburg County, NC
Transportation NCDOT R211 DA
Checked By: BLH Date: July 1995
n f%
mowing of the area to prevent over-topping by pioneer vegetation and to scarify the soils
between the beds during the first two years of restoration, if necessary.
TABLE 4
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatologic Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Radius al Records Criteria Wetland
used in (12.5 % of Hydrological
Simulation Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
200 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1985 26 34 of 36
continous
days
200 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1986 26 35 of 37
continous
days
Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forested communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types developed through a landscape approach to
community restoration contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other
wildlife.
RFE data and on-site observations, coupled with experience in forest ecosystem classification
and a review of the available literature, were used to develop the primary plant community
associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. These community
associations include: 1) bottomland forest; 2) shrub scrub wetland; and 3) emergent wetland.
A summary of community restoration components is provided.
30
Restoration of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands (9.8 ac/4.0 ha) is designed to re-establish
the major component species which facilitate development of the community. The bottomland
forest community is targeted to support indicator species such as river birch, eastern
cottonwood, swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, green ash, and tulip poplar. Opportunistic
species which typically dominate disturbed swamp forests have been excluded from initial
community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species include loblolly pine (Pious taeda), sweet
gum, and red maple. In addition, American sycamore has been excluded due to perceived low
ecosystem value indicated by various natural resource personnel. Efforts to inhibit early site
domination by opportunistic species may be required during the first several years of tree
growth to encourage diversity. However, these species should also be considered important
components of steady-state bottomland hardwood forest communities where species diversity
has not been jeopardized.
In order for NCDOT to obtain this site, they had to agree to establish a shrub/small tree
(<_ 13 ft/4m) community within the southern section (approx. 4 ac/1.6 ha) of the site. This
is due to a proposed hotel which is to be built adjacent to the southern end of the site. It was
felt that re-establishment of a forest community would obscure the view of the proposed
hotel.
Creation of the palustrine scrub-shrub wetland (3.2 ac/1.3 ha) is designed to add functional
lift to the mitigation site through the establishment of key species found within this community
type. Target community structure for scrub-shrub wetland is composed of alder (Alnus
serrulata), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and
spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Intermittent stems of equal importance species such as dog-
hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), smooth azalea (Rhododendron arborescens), and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis) are being facilitated. Possum-haw (Virburnum nudum) and painted
buckeye (Aescu/us sylvatica) will also be encouraged in the target scrub-shrub community.
Water quality is expected to be improved through the planting of palustrine emergent
community (3.1 ac/1.2 ha) (Hammer 1989). In addition, the establishment of a marsh
community system along swales and within retention pools will provide rare ecotonal
assemblages of forest/marsh and shrub/marsh not found within the region. Major species
which will be used to form the structure of the community include sweet flag (Acorus
calumus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), duck potato
(Sagittaria ladfolia), bulrush (Scirpus validus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). Infrequent plantings
of cow-lily (Nuphar luteum) within open water areas will be encouraged in the target
community.
31
The following planting plan serves as the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated
results stated in the Success Criteria are expected to reflect potential vegetative conditions
which may be achieved after steady-state conditions prevail over time.
Planting Plan
A planting plan is proposed for the mitigation areas to reestablish wetland community patterns
across the landscape (Figure 13). The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland
species; 2) implementation of proposed surface topography improvements; and 3) planting of
selected species on site. The COE bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA
1993) were utilized in developing this plan.
The species selected for planting will be dependent upon the availability of local seedling
sources at the time of planting. Target planting densities and total stems needed by species
are depicted in Table 5.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest'
A. Overstory
1. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. Cherrybark Oak (Q. pagoda)
3. Willow Oak (Q. phe/%s)
4. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5. Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
6. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
8. Carolina Ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
9. River Birch (Betula nigra)
B. Understory and Groundcover
Groundcover and understory elements are expected through natural recruitment
from adjacent bottomland forest areas and stream banks.
'Certain characteristic canopy trees such as sweet gum (Liquidambar styracifiua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) have not been incorporated into this plan because these species are expected through natural recruitment.
32
W
W
l/ .
ap OOO
0000 0
O°000 000 00000
o°o°O°o°o o O°°° O°°°°°
f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.' 000 0 0 0 0 0 -0, 0 0 0 0 O 0 O
0 0 0 o 0 0 o O o00 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 000 0 00
,. 00 O 0000000000°0°0000 0 0 0 0 000000000 O°0°O
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 000000000 0 0 0 0 00 000 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0
0 0000000000000000 000000000000 0 0 0 0° 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
00 00000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0000000000000000000 0000000000
0 0 0000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000000000000 0 0
0 00000000000000000000 o O
o0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0° o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o o°o
S 00 000000000000000 000000000000000000 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
j °0° °O°O°000°O°0°0 °0°0°0000000°000° 000
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °°° 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O o 0 0 0 o O 0 o O o 0 0 o O 0
o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 000000 000000000 0000
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O
O O O 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0
i j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i 0 00 00 0 000000000000000p° 0 00 00 0
O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000 00000000°00000000000000000
00000000 00000000°0°0°0000°0000000 N 0 TH
p o o p 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 000000000
000°0 00000 000 000000000
000000000 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0°000000 000 0 000000000
0000°
0000000 00000. `
0000 0000 00
00
O ooooo° 000000 00
n ^ o°o° °°0°0°0° °°o
0°0° 0°000°000 °00
T? 000 00000000000 0
00 00000
(D Q °0° 0°0°0°0°0°
00 00000000000°0°0 0 0
00 00000 °
r O °0 00000000000
i 0000 00000000000000 C
,00000 00000000000000 0.000000 000
1 - '000 O O
(D CD X000 000000000 0000 ooooo
,^ 0000 00000000000000 0000°
tl..i 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000 0 0 0 0 0 0
(n O D ° 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°° 0 0 0 000 0 °°
^ O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0
! °° O O O O O O° °°
i 000000 °O°0°00000°O °O°00
000000 000000°0°O°O °0°O° O O
O (Q -? 000000 00000000000 00000 0000
Q _ 0000000 000000000000 °0000 0000
Z 0000000 000000000000 0000
.?. 000000 000000000000 Oooo 0 0
,l 0000000 °00°°0000000°00°°0 00000
C) O 0000000 000000000000 0000 W
0000000 °°°p°p°° 00000 D D D O
-1 o r?
Z (D 00000 0 1 0°0°0 °o O°°o°0°°0°0°0°0°0°0 C C
000 0 0 0000000000000000
N N 00 00 ooooo 0000000000000000 -+ Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0° 000000 0000°0°00000°0
VI -F i 000 ooooo 0000000000000
000 000000 000000000000
C7 0?0 000000 °°?o?0 0 0 Z Z Z D
(D C) Q 00 00000 0 °000000 m m m z
00 0000 0
O_ O °° ° 000
j 000000000 C V/ m
0
C7 'rl
? °o° Z
i t z G7
Cn m ?
r C
D CIO D
:...... O U4 U)
'
O N W
o ? o o ? C7
D
ao o 70
o O r*1
c rmi
o D tD °o ? C7
CO
Lf)
y C
O m
O
W
W
_H
Z
O
Q
F..
G
W
W
U
LO cr
W
J
Co
N
FQ- W
J
H
J
W
2
C7
W
cc
a
`Z
p
z
Q
J
CL
(n Cl)

W J
Q

MMLO M M M M LO LO
_

rrr rrrr?-
co cc) 0
co (D co d
V It d•d•d•ItItIt It It
r, rl r? r, r, r, r? r? r, NNNNNNNNN
(OCO(O(o(0(oco(0(0 N
U') LO r
LO O
C.O N
N NNN
V1 F- N
(D r ?- r r r r r 00
M M M co O

C r r
N N N N N N N N N LO
LO
tr)
N N N LO Ln LO
N N N
0 co (Oco CDw(OCOco co
0
.

U
Cl)
W to
7 N

y 0
r'-r
r r r - N N _ N N_ N 00
00 00 00 00 00
C O d d• 'ct It It co (0 to co CO (O
C0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
CL O r r
4t
4t -0 O
0.,
O + C MMLOMLOMMMM
?d ?t?d d ?d 0000 LO
LO LO r- 00c000
LO LO LO r
0 CO f\ t\ n t\ t\ f\ f\ t\ `- N N
Y1 H a
,a
C O
w
U
.
t0
E "C U
O C

p
m O r r r r r r r ?- N N N N
N
F- '- r r r r - N
M co co 00 co
C
O
co"

OOCOCO00OCO(O
CO co
MCn
co co co
CT MM
LO

:kh

W ?
U CD
W
M ?e
M 'a CU
(n
to O 0 N
0 U)

Y Q) co 0
C
C
N 0 O=
`J 'O fCt >
O CD Y
L 0 CO
? CA O
CA a)
CA
J
(D +
+
L Y Y 0 O w 0 t
U CO 0 0 0 co C Q U U
N 3 N N CO 0
0 m y a Q` L co <T
CO C+ 0 l0 ++

C ti
co
U Q
?>.3 o a ?
? c'm m
co?L
? Cn >
? U
CL y- O
•

o a +m a? o w
Co
CD a)

D°> v O Cn
. a) a
o J

'd co
Z)
cu 0 !=

w
P
n
3 o
n
° n n
LLC7000C
(
U?1 Qmin(n
wa
(
a (
(nnUOCC
aMu co
U
Z
O
0
m
.C
7
E
E
0
U
N
z
00
c
0
c
U
N
Co
L
C
O
N
c_
O
U
(>
t
0
co
O
LL
8 C
7 0
m m
> O
`m
0
m a)
7
c
`0 c
a)
a) c
L 0
F- E
O 0
? Y
C 0
oa
7 a)
M
7 M
'O
a0
O 0
a) c
U 0
07 C
a) 7
? N
C
a? y
E 7
0 C
C a
N C
aI
U) C
8 a
E 0
E a
0 0
U H

34
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
A. Understory
1. Alder (A/nus serru/ata)
2. Button Bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
3. Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
4. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
5. Dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris)
6. Smooth Azalea (Rhododendron arborescens)
7. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
8. Possum-haw (Virburnum nudum)
9. Painted Buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica)
B. Groundcover
Groundcover elements are expected through natural recruitment from adjacent
bottomland forest areas and stream banks.
Palustrine Emergent
A. Herbaceous
1. Sweet Flag (Acorus calumus)
2. Soft Rush (Juncus effusus)
3. Cow-Lily (Nuphar /uteum)
4. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum)
5. Duck Potato (Sagittaria latifolia)
6. Bulrush (Scirpus validus)
7. Cattail (Typha latifolia)
Planting Program
Bare root seedlings of tree species will be planted on 8-foot (2.4 m) centers (680 trees/acre)
for bottomland forest, bare root or 1 gallon container of shrubs species will be planted on 5-
foot (1.5 m) centers (1,742 stems/acre), and tuber/rhizome of herbaceous species were
applicable will be planted on 3-foot(1.0 m) centers (10,890 stems/acre) within the specified
map areas. In restoration areas, species at the relative densities indicated in Table 5 will be
alternated within adjacent centers whenever feasible. Planting will be performed between
35
December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring season. Removal or control of competing nuisance vegetation will be
implemented as necessary to ensure adequate survival of target wetland and upland plants.
Wetland Soil Restoration
Land use practices have impacted soil characteristics on the mitigation site. Impacts include
the minimization of hydric conditions in upper soil horizons, the reduction in organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition, the placement of spoil ridges along the site, and
the elimination of surface microtopography by agricultural activities. The creation of shallow
pools and swales as proposed during hydrological restoration should serve to reintroduce
hydric soil conditions and halt the reductions in organic matter content. Further soil
remediation tasks include removal of spoil ridges and reestablishment of surface
microtopography.
Reference wetlands within relatively undisturbed portions of the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, and hummocks
associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the
system. Large woody debris and partially decomposed litter provide additional complexity
across the wetland soil surface. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface
roughness will be implemented on the mitigation site. Activities will be promoted which will
facilitate the formation of hummocks and concavities in order to increase surface storage and
provide micro-habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Scarification of surface soils
between planted trees will further promote surface microtopography on the mitigation site.
A natural levee will be recontoured to approximately 3 ft (0.90 m) tall and will serve as a
"service road" for the mitigation site. Within the levee, water control structures will be
employed to reproduce the functions of a natural levee by delaying the recession of
stormwater runoff back into the creek, thus extending the period of water storage and
deposition of sediments within the floodplain.
36
VII. MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, vegetation and
hydrology. Wetland soils currently exist within restoration areas and monitoring is not
considered necessary to verify hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
Hydrology Monitoring
While hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers',
Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August
1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth 24 inches below the soil surface.
Approximately 9 surficial monitoring wells (6 in the northern pod and 3 in the southern pod)
should be imbedded within vegetation sampling plots to provide representative coverage within
each of the two wetland ecosystem types. (Monitoring well placement will be made after
consultation with COE personnel.) Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the
growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each
community restoration area (EPA 1990).
Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5% of the
growing season during average climatic conditions. These areas are expected to support
hydrophytic vegetation within organic soils of low permeability. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and hydrology monitoring, consultation with COE
personnel will be undertaken to determine jurisdictional extent in these transitional areas.
Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
37
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and September 31
after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, 0.05 acre plots will be
randomly placed within the restored bottomland forest ecosystem. Sample plot distributions
will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on
hydrological and vegetation parameters. In each 0.05-acre sample plot, vegetation parameters
to be monitored include average tree height, species composition, density, and basal area.
Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be
recorded.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community components necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional
success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre must be surviving
for at least 3 years after initial planting. Characteristic tree species are those elements
enumerated in the planting plan along with natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, and
loblolly pine. Loblolly pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10% of the 320
stem/acre requirement. In addition, at least five other character tree species must be present,
and no species can comprise more than 20% of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental
plantings will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part
of the vegetation success criteria. Development of a bottomland forest canopy over several
decades and restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and
establishment of desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be
reported for information purposes.
Report Submittal
An "as built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by community
type, and sample plot locations, will be provided after completion of planting. A discussion
of the planting design, including what species were planted, the species densities and numbers
planted will also be included. The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of
planting.
38
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies following
each assessment. Submitted reports will document the sample transect locations, along with
photographs which illustrate site conditions.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will also be calculated within each community restoration map unit.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, character tree
mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will be
calculated. A visual estimate and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of
understory and groundcover species will be generated.
Contingency
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended
monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum
species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies
in the event that wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
39
VIII. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
Mitigation planning has been oriented towards replacing wetland functions diminished or lost
due to the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-211 DA). Wetland restoration and enhancement strategies
have been designed to exceed those functions believed to be present (and eventually lost)
within the intended road widening corridor.
A subjective wetland functional evaluation was undertaken on the mitigation site and impact
areas to evaluate functional replacement needs. The study involved visual evaluations of
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland functions outlined in various research and project literature
(Brinson 1994, ESI 1994a, ESI 1994b). Specific wetland functions evaluated are presented
in Table 6. This assessment has been expanded in an effort to categorize functions into three
primary areas: a) hydrodynamics; b) biogeochemical processes; and c) maintenance of biotic
resources. Proposed mitigation seeks both spatial and functional replacement for impacted
wetland resources.
An objective HGM functional assessment was not performed to ordinate, through multivariate
analysis, the range of wetland functions that occur within subject wetland classes. Reference
wetland data sets were not quantitatively sampled to determine "maximum sustainable
performance" for characteristic wetland functions. In addition, the site indicators of functional
performance were not quantitatively identified. In this study, reference wetland systems were
evaluated in the field by ecologists to discern the features present within relatively undisturbed
(reference) wetlands. Subsequently, impacted wetlands and mitigation activities were
subjectively compared to reference conditions as an indicator of differences in existing or
projected wetland functions. Projected performance of wetland functions on the mitigation
site was inferred from conditions expected 20 years after mitigation activities are completed.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) areas within the floodplains of Mecklenburg County were
utilized as an indicator of maximum sustainable performance for characteristic wetland
functions. Target functions have been identified based on the type of wetland to be impacted
(bottomland, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C)).
Bottomland, seasonally flooded wetlands (PF01 C) are the type of impacted wetlands type in
the Charlotte Outer Loop corridor (8.6 acres/3.5 ha; Section III, Table 1). Because bottomland
systems are typically situated immediately adjacent to area streams, these wetlands have the
potential to provide significant hydrodynamic, biochemical, and community maintenance
functions. PF01 C wetlands have the potential to attenuate floodflow, provide for long-term
surface/subsurface water storage, moderate riparian groundwater discharge, and retain
sediments or other elements. Habitat diversity and resulting species diversity is generally
higher in bottomland wetlands. In the impact area, bottomland functions may have been
40

co
W
J
co
H
C U ca

cA
L
0)

C
>• >
O `+-
p 0 L C O

C
C
n) O
O =
++
O y

CU .p O a p c O O
O

"
m m
E m O +,
E N
p y ca i ? p L- a) m >.
0 > CL 0 U) OL 0
-C
='
m c _
E
t
E o o
o LO E 5 4)
?° o a a) E (D It ° aa)i
O N p O >
m

O m 0 L
U ()
C p N E a) a)

(n
m

cn a N

0

-0 +O+
U N
C N
m a) U -0
? E m m
p
p m a)
"D .c .
C
m L m -
O
U)

U O
E p o o '?
N c V CD
U
N
-2
y c c m °-
o Co
L
0

4-- 0

+? a

m

a)

U
cn
= N
` a) 2
ai
+1
E
E
c
°
0

m O
++
O
?
m
+'
p)
U
a
(
0
U
O D
m O
C c
0
>
U
c C U ++
_

p E
C
co
p
E ` a) 0) 0
U c
L U
C a) >• -p

c
N
CO
c
m
ca m ca

m D c
u a N L C O
O
(D
- p N L a
0 Cl) 13 O U C
0 co
Q1

E a)

`

a
0 0 0 co 0 0 E o
O
N 0 U 4) CL
E c
2 -p
c 0 0
C C C -O p .
m 0-0
+, ++ 77- "O N L co
a) p (D N -Q C
c
a) a) CD C
co

a)
.2
u) +1

O a) (D m
C13

co

co 3 +

co a) >
`
a)
O
a)

U

C

'p
N
a)
O
a)
p
O m L O m Up N a) O
O O O m > N 0 3 Q co -O U L

L c
m
p) Q)
O C
0 c m
m
O Co
+,
=
O
U
c
Q
±+
5- O N
C N
o

m

co +,

m o Co L

0 -0

m p

" .-

j 0

N N

o ?

•N 4?

o
0 a)
m
C

a
a
a0
m
>
+
m
a
m
m
O
0
a)
a
a)
>. E
co 0
m
U m
U co
U o Q 3 U o Q a) L
f- a L
s x
w n
as
0' 3
as
D7 i O
(a O ti V
O Cl)
y y
d tm c?0 N 4)

d
m
?
3 d
},
i +
v
m ++ _ N O
0 +
+
a U x t
d V C
O d i '++ W V >,
m m m c d -c o c

N
CL
. ,?
0

. 1-0 o. O
O
N
E N
N D
v G
o ?`
V w- 0
0 a O
V U E
m E

U
d
O m
m _
E
m c
o O
~
W
d C
L 0
O V
C C +O+ V
'
m

C

C i

y

.O O .

++
E
}' m C ?
R
O J W N r Z m cc O d
A_9
N
W
N
Q
J
V
Z
Q
J
F..
W
? Q
Lu
U
0 Q
IL
W
m Z
FQ- Z
O_
F-
V
Z
LL
Li
W
F-
C)
W
M
X
W
U
.C 0
C c °O
co >
N
O
O N DO
U -0
cu 0 L-
CD cp cu O
•
O y
_ 'L C
cB
y
t_ c
m
'a m
0 cm
N O O c
E U N C
-0 O
cu N C
U O D O
++ cr y 7 U
C +? fa co

O
0
L N "O
- "
c0 t 4- 'E
C a) Q
y ca CD
N L > i -?
U O C° C > C
f0
m f6 4-

C
y
"0
y
O
C
O c0
C
O
.2
L
(D

:3
rn
O C O y y N
Q. c
0 -
c •+
O. -0 "0 ±+
O C a) 0 c0 c0 i
cn O
f0 y
c0 .C
(D
C -0
cn CL (n
y
cn
w O
Q ++
C N 0
-0 L
-0 O

U
C L
>
c0 y
m E
0 .
16 O
E 4)

E U t:! m

L
?
(D a 0 c 0 C

a) C
CD
°
y
-0

-o
°
0 0 0 > 0
U O C
U C U C c U
co
C t
6
C c0 0
C 0 0
C cts o c
C +j
L
C C C '? C a) C n•
co cu v a

y
y U V
_
&
O > L d
0) Y a)
(D
c0 O
V C R ? R ?
?
i = R = O C

G o?? 0Q 0Q
V a0+ ) d
N
'i
c0 C a
C O m O O O
ay+ = d
CL C
(D C +' l0

cc ?o
++
ay
C •i L
C •i a)

10
c0
CL .
m
m
> •+

.0
V y E C>
d'
U)
W
C7
0)
CY)
C
O
U)
c
m
42
compromised by channelization (which has reduced frequency, depth, and extent of over bank
flooding) and through encroachment from agriculture/urbanization. However, these wetlands
continue to represent a valuable resource for the region. Functional replacement is considered
paramount.
Mitigation provides for restoration and enhancement of a contiguous wetland area situated
immediately adjacent to the Little Sugar Creek. The entire wetland site will function as a
stream-side management zone (SMZ) with resultant benefits to the creek system. Restoration
of hydrodynamic and biogeochemical processes in creek systems should result in
improvements to water quality inputs into the stream. In addition, the presence of restored
natural communities will provide wildlife habitat of greater area-wide function than the
collective sum of crossings of impacted PF01 C systems in the Charlotte Outer Loop corridor.
Based on the proposed mitigation strategy, hydrogeological modeling results, subjective
wetland functional evaluations, and current research, this mitigation project is expected to
meet and exceed mitigation needs associated with the new multi-lane Charlotte Outer Loop.
43
IX. DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT will maintain control of the mitigation area until all success criteria have been met (3-5
years from plan implementation). It is anticipated that within five to ten years from plan
implementation Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation will seek to incorporate the site into
the county's "green-way" system. Stipulations will be incorporated into the deed upon
transfer to insure that the property remains as conservation land in perpetuity.
44
X. REFERENCES
Baumer, 0. and J. Rice. 1988. Methods to predict soil input data for DRAINMOD ASAE
Paper No. 88-2564. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Belcher, H. W. and G. E. Merva, 1987, Results of DRAINMOD verification study for
Zeigenfuss, soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Brinson, M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, R.P. Novitzki, W.L. Nutter, and D.F. Whingham. 1994.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands.
The National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative. Seattle, WA.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and
status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17
Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C. N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Brown, Philip M., et al, 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-.500,000 scale.
Butler, J.R. and D.T. Secor. 1991. "The Eastern Piedmont in North Carolina." in The Geology
of the Carolinas, J. Wright Horton, Jr., and Victor A. Zullo, eds. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville TN.
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.J. Litwin. 1982. "The Use of Wetlands for
Water Pollution Controll." EPA-600/S2-82-086. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cooper, H. H., Jr., J. D. Bredehoft, and I. S. Papadopoulos. 1967. Response of a finite-
diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research, 3, pp
263-269.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of Interior.
45
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993. Corps of Engineers (COE). WRP Technical Note
HY-IA-3.1 August 1993, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
1993. Corps of Engineers (COE). HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph
Package User's Manual, Hydrological Engineer Center, Davis, California
. 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNR). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. NC Geological Survey.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST).
A methodology to classify pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance
standards for construction and restoration of forested wetlands. EPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994a; unpublished. Determination of applicable
mitigation credit For restoration of wetland buffers and wetland/upland ecotones: US
64 wetland restoration and conservation management plan, US 64 relocation, Martin
and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. Provided to the N.C. Department of
Transportation.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994b; unpublished. Mitigation Plan: Northeast Florida
Wetland Mitigation Bank. Technical Report for St. Johns River Water Management
District, Palatka, Fla.
Fouss, J. L., R. L. Bengtson and C. E. Carter, 1987, Simulating subsurface drainage in the
lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6)-. 1679 -
1688.
Gayle, G., R. W. Skaggs and C. E. Carter, 1985, Evaluation of a water management model for
a Louisiana sugar cane field. J. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4: 18 - 28.
46
Guntsnspergen, G.R., F. Stearns, and J.A. Kadlec. 1989. "Wetland Vegetation". in
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. D.A. Hammer. ed. Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Hammer, D.A. and R.K. Bastin. 1989. "Wetlands Ecosystems: Natural Water Purifiers"? in
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. D.A. Hammer, ed. Lewis Publishers,
Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Hvorslev, M. J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS.
Jones, S.M. 1989. Application of Landscape Ecosystem Classification in Identifying
Productive Potential of Pine-Hardwood Stands. (in) Pine-Hardwood Mixtures: a
Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. Waldrop, T.E. (ed).
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests
of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2): 137-144, Special
Issue, June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
McCrain, G.R. 1992. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) applied to mitigation banking in
North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Management. 35:153-162.
. 1994 Mitigation Ratios in the Southeast. Paper presented at the Annual
Symposium. Society of Wetland Scientists, May 31-June 3, 1994. Portland Oregon.
Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the EPA and the
DOE Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC.
Peet, R.K. and N.L. Christensen. 1980. Hardwood Forest Vegetation of the North Carolina
Piedmont. Veroff. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rubel, Zurich 69. Heft (1980), 14-39.
Rogers, J. S., 1985, Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28 (3): 785-790.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC.
47
Skaggs, R. W., 1980, A water management model for artificially drained soils. Tech. Bull.
No. 267, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State University, Raleigh.
54 pp.
Skaggs, R. W., 1982, Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey and B. H. Nolte, 1981, Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam and R. 0. Evans, 1991, A computer simulation study of pocosin
hydrology. Wetlands (1 1): 399 - 416.
Skaggs, R.W., et a[, 1993, Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590.21 p.
Susanto, R. H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx and G. Wyseure, 1987, The use of simulation models
to evaluate the performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proc. of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State Univ., pp. A67 - A76.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Interior (USDI). 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. Fish and wildlife
Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC. 102 ESM.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Habitat Evaluation Procedures Workbook.
National Ecology Research Center.
48
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REVIEW
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
TIP No.: R-2123
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 Dale Street, Suite 220
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MAY 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................ii
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .............................. 1
II. PUBLIC RECORDS EVALUATION ................................... 3
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management .................... 3
Groundwater Section ...................................... 3
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Registrations and
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Registrations ....... 3
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management ..................... 3
Superfund Section ........................................ 3
National Priorities List (NPL) ............................ 6
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLIS) ............... 6
Hazardous Waste Site Inventory (SPI) ..................... 6
Responsible Party Voluntary Remedial Action Sites (VRA) ........ 6
Sites Priority List (SPL) ................................ 6
Hazardous Waste Section ................................... 6
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) .. 6
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) ............. 7
Solid Waste Section ....................................... 7
Solid Waste Facilities ................................. 7
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management ...................... 7
Emergency Management Spills (EMS) ........................... 7
III. SITE INSPECTION ............................................10
IV. AREA RECONNAISSANCE ......................................11
V. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................12
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 13
VII. REFERENCES ................................................14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map ........................................... 2
Figure 2 - UST/LUST Locations ......................................... 4
Figure 3 - Hazardous Waste Generator Locations ............................. 8
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REVIEW
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
1. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
A Hazardous Materials Review was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) under the
direction of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), for the Charlotte Outer
Loop Mitigation Plan, Little Sugar Creek Site, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to identify potential sources of
environmental concerns or hazards which may be present on the Little Sugar Creek tract or
adjacent properties. The area of investigation established for the search area ranged from 0.5
mile for items of lower hazard concerns to 1.0 mile for items of higher concern. Lower hazard
concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C small quantity generators, transporters, underground storage
tanks (USTs), above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), and other entities, while items of higher
concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs). The low and
high hazard concern designated items are defined as such from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.
The efforts performed at this site consisted of (1) a regulatory agency database review, (2)
a physical inspection of the subject site, and (3) a physical reconnaissance of adjacent
properties. ESI evaluated the data to ascertain whether the site and adjacent properties are
currently or have previously been subject to the use, storage, transportation, and/or disposal
of hazardous/toxic wastes and/or materials. Appendix 1.0 presents photographs which were
taken during the site reconnaissance to document current field conditions.
This report is organized into three primary sections as referenced above. The first section,
(public records evaluation), presents a summary of findings from the regulatory agency
database review. The second section, (site inspection), presents a summary of the findings
of the visual inspection of the subject site. The third section, (vicinity reconnaissance),
includes potential environmental concerns and hazards identified on properties located adjacent
to and within the respective search radii of the subject site.
1
BREUSTER OR - 4 1 2 RatT
C t? P Business Park SSE\ X a ¢ EI E
.? so NER3 ?ocf ? _ ' \ ?? ? ! ?,N? `.+? v CRESSIDA y Nnp ?E
\ ..- \ ESTB?O?lFg 'v EP RD $iEr,? y1,LSO?t- s
\ v
SE B \CO i.__-..+! =JQ b
_ STI 014
tone nF if b R 4 aFe ?a a acv o <kPr--
(J _` 2tr ) ?` `?p?V LO LOLLY $? nB,D a C,,ICtRC19. t C"
I f? ` ?G>y Vi ??y ?I? AILEEN',fo LA °°r $ ?? pf?h. °yf? x p,_?•??
01
..Nov" f,p 118 W,
C, 0- PiU(:E CT ! LR tiGH,t
Amon \\ \O,y IUCNBERRN" JR P AJ0 4 WATCH NIL w
_ Z N6 O 1 CT
•Y 5`11 V
\9 ? 'u` 1 i T i o G ?_? elnslE?v ?,? xL ??
< i < 4NpL 1 1<` /ti > »
PA ?? SAL o sf n 4 q V/?' <=OC
P'`tlt ia T , 'ma'y 1? =C? C7 = R'9.VEy ? w ?n PC4N0
L f Fttt O 01
N .i o S
lz u1J \ \ , 0.r rw?`/ `a?c4 ?n ti?o = iREUUpa
4
ggT?Q? w
n A .f
1) \ `I tl }S eF
R' (;1 i •rfrgrL`; v 'Irl r?rf
f \ j a.lf ?0, 7T
I???INDUSTRIAL \lll ,/ P. ??t o r? r ? r r
W PON
1 -{ I j'T "rr?I. 11 ot?, W), x 1 y r J K'Fy 44
PARK v rPlne,[Ile
Flume t(1' 9l ?`'H?!`, oN`? c•}\?%'?4fs qN OP. o* \ 2
r f/g q De"An :? rftrAe c}', `r
7fCP/ 2 - . Y `fiR??N tin'
4411 4, ?05 n)?.1 r I Sw??i'?eoiR U v
`?2 NS Ivf ?. y e. ?? /<,, - a MUH HAMPTON oR Q
rl .t1 O c., {? Fart
SPPtWG S CT y
CHIMNEY CO COitNFp Cr
t 4 / ? t yT?Cedar ETf
hll L .?1 JPINEViLLF+ ??qr -// Sr'ti' Ilrs v "_ Bu.lnes
<.?•rrr \{ ' SP ! lei d1LHi Park ,Perk , FygH `? •f LPG
- ---- r>{ ??! r r J roPOSEO{¢ ?'. A ®i P,rl,kie tii ?cr - ??1c ltufl
3 ?huPGr r Pace uur.InsnkCreek r
F'as:.af 5?:aiIMsrket_?c
5 k0 1 R w,r E b OF C?tr . ?Ir
uu
. rk ?u"
M
±??+?r? ?rPO :{ er St C,t if^ Oe ??e 1/1LLE- AM
?,((- S /F LL FGE_ It NfaT CG i. I 1 -I
/o?Y `S'i ,C s} 've.C1 n= Cr Carr1,1 :.
$ W]KC ?r•r?i Z "V.? \ All
? S ` 9` Z. \` ;'•.Rp _? Tr minenr L y F' \ vE R ,9.r °4 ?r C m,qR coeP
lanl PinnvillP 4 ry'rN'e ('}r1°? f? ?r c`N
Town flal(,a?ll?
??) o Y r'arl,lina y.l L „ 4 v .? ; \.b/?a)S r r.Ci?Jr:
122 3 F'?' ,.tcr•t.aJii 4. c ( ?: r. ??s t' ?'
', 1 P t
?.\
?? I 1 :` h sr Y ¢ II 1`f:,cc Bl?a ?'tS P FS .
is Sa?bQ«t rl r ~I Pictiet?
?? I / Edvo I,y ;<t.j:',. j?? ?KRYS ?` 'p ?,' I t//Jrr bar
SELtii 4 `°, P S?'1? ';i j- o? `1C'!,?-•? C.: ;' f•Ia;I W/ ;`I Y,1 `\,a ( Ct 7 E
UrI
T. a?} <.r aP c _ `^ `?-'"'•°.
?`? t ?\ lc c •, ?Sr7Cem ct/ I _tk
1/2 mile Polk' o''?,/'rr'\'! Y =' f8?1
/ f Rwroh ;ti-c 9? ti <.1 CtQ ,?, ° `garC:?,,, j c v 3'
1/ d t ,.r/ k -rti. + JAME_gJ*?
\yoa \
rr^yq. ?'?`?\s ?[1 Jr pie la
_Y - \.a P. V• ` / h .....
l f'rYc' r`r S.
mile, Nt,, r,,. rl r
\\V//! tit h,hn<? I IN; ERMLP? h* ? i °r
?. - ? ? "?? `,1c,?11 roe (Grrek a \ c? _
{tPro-?
/?? \ g`? I %is9al Plant
Study Area
NEW 11 ? \.
p 1/2 1 MILE
THE
Source: DOH Map comparM 190 521
ti
/I SEp?l?v •`><?s;a?rE;sT2vE ?%? ?I
'r l.ar \ :wILDIRIS cT?a v4,' - '" I ?? .rqN
Figure: 1
Envhromnental 'Site Location Map 3
Services, Inc. NCDOT t _
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site C
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: 9 March 95
7
II. PUBLIC RECORDS EVALUATION
A review of applicable regulatory agency databases was conducted by ESI. The limitations
of this evaluation include available data, file access, currently available state lists (which may
not have been updated in recent weeks), and other such constraining factors. This database
evaluation identifies facilities which are known environmental concerns on or adjacent to the
subject site.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Registrations
The Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) maintains a list
for registry of USTs and leaking UST sites throughout North Carolina. ESI investigated data
pertaining to these items as necessary to evaluate whether any registered USTs or leaking
USTs were documented on the subject site, or adjacent properties. The DEM's UST registry
does not guarantee that all existing UST appear on the list. Leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) incidents can vary in severity from a minor residual release to extensive groundwater
contamination.
No registered USTs were located within the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Fifteen sites were located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract which
have registered USTs. One site is just outside the 0.5-mile radius. The location of
these sites are illustrated on Figure 2.
Five LUST incident listings were located within 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek
tract. These sites are located north, west, and south of the subject property. The
location of these sites are illustrated on Figure 2.
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management
Superfund Section
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) through the Division
of Solid Waste Management (DSWM), is required by North Carolina General Statute 130A-
310.1 (a) to maintain an inventory of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Sites.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory accounts for all of the sites in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) inventory of potentially contaminated sites
(CERCLIS) with the intent of addressing those sites not determined to be federal priorities.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory is organized into categories as described below.
3
\?C " ?? * Business f ark '• i?\, j \ ;' ?SEI` I i 1 Q.a BREVSTER OR -EA 1 2 ,ERaarr
GOO O CRESSIDAwyy?`
DOr? rfRG RD 1,? ,.i CDR c 1EN? Wc?ESO?rJ S
- - _ \ STl (iH SE 8 C1, \Nrv J? AF' L.'_ F b s r? ?v v
?kQr- -
?.iJ?9 UrQQ LONG Q
yOLLY ,rip ng9 a oK1RCME?f
I; f0 ?; \CT AILFE?CiI?I? L LA C?. s p?-z'l/?? la
Gs % G o F r 4F
?'s O+ \ \\ ! F9 \J \ -?? U O wGNOVERF9 _p jll8! WI
?t Z I I ?, `FiDCE CT C• ?GHq
Amoy 74
'9 521 { C7 _ tUcN=ERn? Je C,q?` WAiCN NI tO2 e-
{ \ u 117 i n`P c gErns*F?D PG`?t L aT
I I/ 1'A ttls eAlG v f R 'r dq iai
_ R/?] ?, jrj z a L7 7R'yyEy? .e n yC4ND
YI-i^\t `? Pit
\1' T p 1PF<IC ?, °o X 'i r? Y OP ..,r0 C
L S
\ 7 i V? ?F P T `?4)T r n P? is - W?FENS
?? ff 1 ? J y r C? 4'G rll ? ? w R9r Q]
\ Z I \ ^ F 'r`F G1' '1' 49 \ %FI s 4 t,2, RACF e
yr i 2 w
/ r SUIT hI LA N1) . ( Y eo-v oF. ??/ ° L + P ?%• c`
Ate/ INDUSTRIAL t!) ,/ + l t? Jf ?o sr. tL r
4 +n ti O, R tF J/ _.? ,r }p .,1 GiFy ti PON
y ti Y 1 2 r! W 2 n1 FFN` !4y VIEW
?J/ YAR! / rr: l ?',,g? rH qP? s02w
? ? ?q? r/ ['rrle.'dfe •? .? .' 1,?:?.\?,,Trtq ? et
/\! /,I,O . Honle ?' sl CHw? ?':>/,: f4 'rV pp,} o*2F.
gn L?. U •P rt
% ['crlcr I rt! 96rw0': • ,a'° ?r m`
.. ? A - I ? C 714 -i Z - Y ? H ??Ott c pD
-? \ ??•1,? ?Y V art, 1 SNrEf 6E DA
-? R LA VO
Mull HAMPTON D-
tr' :-/Fd ?i PARK I Iy
ni fC w,?R?,? CwiMNa T GD11GS CT
NFp Ci
P11VEVlLLE r r ,q sr. - CS 11 rev yT; leldf Er
Q1 Nd?? % '°cE.r S7 w 'rPrp?wwb b ti:r'i 1 li sicp a! Park k Bu Park fHl .51 04f
r fgsH /I .f[ie?
-------- A= TT Q rs:- roaemo 7.i
Q ¦/F?rl.kSc r +;?waw•r. --4 (•!11Uf1
ye ' 4' ..!?hopCtr ! Place -ourtrysG.leCreek
OQ w e* %?r lcipR? Shoo IIvtarket
.9 k e'1 ?w rk u Ct, "' pTT
I? GF r ¦ .t 1 ?/ SIi erl fy ?? 'cam 1/1LLE' .
q i?4 ??' I t i + ?a Maar r?'£ r.ill.
r\ Q,c fy tQk' ` s 5 ?: n Cal + r? ,I
\, t{? S wapc p ` WnN ?' a \.{; _ Iti f.
Tr all:lrnt t IE Pt
lanz ~ \ J ~r h
` Pin
nvil
Town E!al?,?l?`•\°tti p14 Carolina ?.` p20 $ \ 1 1 7 '"' 'CAP/" R¢? ?? ?, ,r?luwt,w LEtL aV+` ?C r ; tF•L ?r?J?;Ptst I t
Ede i` \?•?vS ;C z r I 1 a , ?0?? rlir ?? r Pickett
?? ` a° .? r ownr s ? r hlall I t k SU Y ,t 4 C+
RS F. ?. t / `? \ P s, ?? ? l t .--? L ?nns y?- o° .- Ct-7
?? s ??s \ iy I'•t Sr ¦ ?l?? T. sN <i1 an s 'y L y?
-?lCem i
Tit` i. <'7nt+ rs 1/2 mile Polk , It',? r?. ..%ti• ?a' sner-n0(,M`.?y 2
w;??^ ., •Yn , , c r l 9d ?•. ,a ,Inn
t 3'
d ronr?.` to \ R _ JAME_9i}` ?Irlnorla; Statr, ,NQ l? f`.? ?I EO ?c
y' . f <i TF pK K °o` mA,)rica! Site N
SCa -
? P? 1 I qo R i u rn r ?? aa' ? f {. '\` c Yr. S} ?t z' t
-',Zao, rTrm er y
'Apf
t i r? r ? rO re?lulWw ,N`:
U/
1 mile ?IC°"? / P.
O I I,h ?? IN ?YM1 lr? \?L9c,ig
` - a McAlpine C.mek
( Nsposaf Plant \ ;:r )o-? _
a
I \1 ! r,, yr?? ?I
Study Area \v
NEW F1
0 1/2 1 MILE
THE -
Source: Doff Map Company, 1995
---L; 521
i? . 're, rsaplPlS cn.-N '•+ r
Figure: 2 1 '
Environmental UST/LUST Locations 11
Services, Inc. NCDOT 7
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: 9 March 95
A
KEY TO FIGURE 2
REGISTERED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
AND LUST INCIDENTS
WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE OF LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
NUMBER ON MAP POTENTIAL CONCERNS
1. Catoe's Exxon Eight USTs
Intersection of Hwy51 /Polk Rd.
2. Pineville AMOCO Three USTs
101 N. Polk
3. Auto Bell Car Wash One UST
201 S. Polk
4. Minit-tube Four USTs
207 N Polk LUST incident
5. Goodyear Tire One UST
327 S. Polk
6. Cedar Springs Hospital One UST
Pineville-Matthews Rd
7. James K. Polk Memorial One UST
Hwy 521 South
8. Kmart Five USTs
Pineville-Matthews Rd.
9. Handy Pantry Unknown # of USTs
Intersection of Polk Rd./Hwy 51
10.Carolina Concrete Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
117 Cadillac St. LUST incident
1 1.Shops on the Main Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
Hwy 51 (Main St.) LUST incident
12. BP Oil #24210 Four USTs
8925 Pineville-Matthews Rd.
13.Tillet Chemical Co. Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
316 College St. LUST incident
14.Fire Station AST,
College/Church St. Existence of USTs unknown
15.Seven-Eleven Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
8912 Pineville St. LUST incident
National Priorities List (NPL)
The NPL consists of sites the federal government has determined to be some of the highest
priority and, potentially uncontrolled hazardous sites in the nation. ESI investigated data
pertaining to these items and identified one site, Southeastern Pollution Contro/
(EPA#NCD000773663), located in the Pineville area. ESI was not able to contact the
company in order to determine whether Southeastern Pollution Control is located within 1.0-
mile radius of the subject property.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLIS)
CERCLIS is a United States Environmental Protection Agency list of potential hazardous
substance disposal sites. ESI reviewed the CERCLIS database and found no sites listed for
the subject site or within a 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Hazardous Waste Site Inventory (SPI)
This is an inventory of sites listed in the Inactive Hazardous Sites maintained by the Superfund
Section of the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management. No sites were listed for
the subject site or within a 0.5 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Responsible Party Voluntary Remedial Action Sites (VRA)
In accordance with North Carolina General Statute 130A-310.9(b), voluntary cleanups or
"remedial actions" conducted by responsible parties with agency approval under the Inactive
Hazardous Sites law must be listed within the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory. No sites
were identified for the subject site or within a 1.0 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Sites Priority List (SPL)
The SPL includes sites with confirmed contamination or known disposal of hazardous
substances which have been ranked using the Prioritization System rules (NCAC Title 15A
Subchapter 13C.0200). Based on the results of our investigation, no sites were identified for
the subject site or within a 1.0 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Hazardous Waste Section
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)
ESI investigated the RCRIS database which identifies facilities which generate, transport, treat,
store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. As a result, 14 facilities were identified within
1.0-mile radius of the subject site. See Figure 3 for the location of each site. All of these
sites are classified as either small quantity generators, or conditionally exempt small quantity
generators.
6
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
The EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a repository of information on
releases of oil and hazardous substances. Releases are recorded in ERNS when they are
initially reported to the federal government by any party. Based on the results of this
investigation, over 60 emergency response reports have been filed for the Pineville area. The
research necessary to determine the exact location of these spills is beyond the scope of this
project.
Solid Waste Section
Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities are regulated by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section (SWS). These
facilities include permitted sanitary landfills, closed sanitary landfills, permitted (or closed)
demolition (C&D) waste landfills, old unpermitted (closed) dump sites, inert waste landfills,
transfer stations, storage facilities, and other related facilities. Based upon the results of this
investigation, no facilities were identified within the Little Sugar Creek tract or within a 0.5-
mile radius of the tract.
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Management Spills (EMS)
ESI evaluated Emergency Management Spill (EMS) data which is obtained from a listing
maintained by the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety (NCDCCPS).
As part of the data base search, a list of EMS spill reports were reviewed and several listings
were identified within Mecklenburg county, many of which did not disclose specific locations.
Due to the presence of commercial and industrial development, it is possible that some spills
may have occurred within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site. Such spills maybe considered
detrimental to the quality of storm water run-off.
7
/C M Ausiness' ark t •? r' b a
try SSE 2 ,r Q. BREVSTER OR -EH j,12
2 4ATE
? 60 !VERB ?OC? To Ty?iC ? CJ CRESSIDA to d \. y+ s _ RR p ? 4
- r'? ?--?• _l SS ?`?O?tF jEN N?t Eit'EP S
o T ° ?'? Po ? -
- - _ \ gT? (3H0 SE 8 (t /?</) 4 aG 0R
Q i--- \ v J AF' F b a s r ?$
a
Y ?? R e8? T ?,,R•1RCHErI SF ??
O&LOLL
Jib rs ?\ J?wr?Q LOH ?
G t; ?js AI LEENI.?'? x
?? ? y? \ , C+ ?ti 1,' ?-.•` . 7 _`?? ?o ear 8 fi pr o? e9 a _ p ?.-,a?a
1 <
V DT CI HaNOVERF9 tp -? I la,
Wry
?MOn ?a \ q / ? \RIDDE CT Or u 1 p Gk'+
'9 \ 511 8 1 - rURNZ ER9Y c?bJeOe AaOA WirCH MILL C7 tj
\\ ti
s? EMSiE?L pOth s}
` u?117 a 01
\ PA tt?{ BA(
y 0 >r e ? A VJ E i79
. - P F 0 1 R'9NE!1 y n 9C4ND
PkF.PE t 9l1LrF .;P 2 N}? r i T OF ?? C
\ `? i UF` n {b'> ? C! 0975 1rr P P I Ia "p "!'?E?rrNl99 tJ ? JJ
t.? SOIL'lIIt, N1)? \. // r9r }\ r h
INDUSTRIAL %P ' Lr
\`t r, O+ R ??J +K. ?Oa• f'V; JA r Oify ti N
t S 2 F3 L O E>t' La VIEW
?•` p/? y i1„ \ I i `;W rN ?' au Cw ?r0 Y Sri
v, /r/ rPlne.•Itfe•I .i .' \'"` O -LA `\ 'j ?'•. r ?,? = Home ?' pL 12, `J ..n???/:?'T• 4y 0* 2
.? i ?'O` Y ' 1)r,IRa ' I :I ? ? rrrraeoN ?y ? A ,fir, ?C.
[Crier; cgpBSl rGt: ? to m
'17 C, Do
l.R
Per
r t '''??•. ` »>' I$?} (( II rr
1 lWE?T?,CE DIA LA t
N 41 4pp 0 l ?. 5 9/.Tr » 2 MUH HAMPTON DR O
.` '?' Cr w '? G) lI,? y` Park PARK SPPINGS CT .y?
ti »:•.
<a•. ? Cellar ewftlnFY eoaHEl+er
PINEVILLE~ J Har ?rtEef? S ? Sr , - I ?',1 1? Scy? ? Hu.lna ron ?+w?
HI
51 $ r _' rt N1 dical Park ' Park ER.r `'/4°aE
---- r` 'a!rt rs 1 roseDl ^?1; 77' 0/Fark.ide q ;wwr. -- ?V<1c?lu[I
Q7/ O 3 ?? ?' - _?huP Clr ,/ f'I3ce urlryvile(;reek
1' v? kG¢V i w E* ?r Cr(oo IMarket?r*
YILLE-fAATT
fib/ cQ'r 1 " t d t \?*??
9 d?4 Ipt`? /s u "' cC f ! l
r sr s. ti. ry n'
\. r7til',?K?t E' .Q ?'' Y'r;\ Nt r``rCafrleth'P ,I
R a Swage aR ?r 9qr
9 y
•'? •. 7r aU ne•n! YE R
'F ?
Ian PinrlillPy? ' 11 \ fP/, "? a-? ',? \ d? r.?M
Town Hall
`+? J o *?1 Carolina i' q10 Ca?ai / ?o`D ??J> y c
\ I 1 ..f?f ,k ?. ? :?',` tSaHl.w Y;1. \C i rt`f? ??'r<A i
`!f111 .. i 1'klcc- 1 W
(-1?^/; 1 yEdv9 ': e T.f.\h\ F NCO Y ?''? ?)? +C "nb. d° rL ^ r Picker
RSE
\ I 1 C? ?r y? wnv ? ??? L m`I blail ' tndi : dr 5??j kpe JJ ti; ( Cc)
\'?
-- °L! t? t+ e°• ? t r „ S'?,'' 2°.f S 1. ringtlr J?
1/2 mile Palk -,ta ..•? :? rG?\r? r >?"'j
t gW'r?hyE k r t' tctP 9a c L,?? ?I? 1?3
/'' d \ ? J4ME8i?T g Alnlrl0ilA1 ?'!a1P? cV '.: ?r ?f ''? ? t`
C,h <c b iP K Oy }li.lrrrica; Site s {, y``\?, `?'- t
4EE \
. \ P t
,t 11??
A- q?R,nkrn^ ?•?•'?? ?. r??11?C.\} r.?n;1r y?`E???r
• r r?o`?r ? \?Mc Lv??'r ?/D?r yin ,?r_ \?; t td? •:.T?I?, xr M1
Hilt%Cc
\ °R,-t - J --. _ o1FEkS t` t -• ?_L -CTSa?r•??r''
S?,p 1 mile r Pall „t. c
O ,, MI 0 T rlR° '?4
I I II?I`n C\F\ TPA La.?° \ 3 _ p *
? e 1 f",
t' RAWL]
\ w McAlpine Creek `--..
Disposal Plant [^r \(oe`?,
r Wr `?
f/ Rte` /1
Study Area
NEW 1<i. 0
1/2 1 MILE _ j
THE. j ,
Source: Dolf Map Company, 19% _
511
i• r C•O
i 4 S t v:ROIRIS CT'O,n.
Figure: 3
Environmental Hazardous Waste Generators „ t
Services, Inc. NCDOT
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5,? "
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC Daft: g March 95
Q
KEY TO FIGURE 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE OF LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
NUMBER ON MAP GENERATOR CLASSIFICATION
1. Hearts One Hour Martinizing Conditionally Exempt
9101 Pineville-Matthews Rd.
2. Praxair Inc. Conditionally Exempt
9628 Industrial Dr.
3. Diesel Power Injection Small Quantity
313 N. Polk St.
4. Industrial Engine & Equipment Conditionally Exempt
311 n. Polk
5. Brady's Tire Country, Inc. Conditionally Exempt
316 N. Polk St.
6. B-Kleen Conditionally Exempt
308 N. Polk St.
7. Catoe's Exxon Service Conditionally Exempt
100 S. Polk St.
8. Rutland Plastics Technologies Conditionally Exempt
10021 Rodney St.
9. Connex Pipe System Inc. Conditionally Exempt
9800 Industrial Drive
10. Minit-tube #1250 Small Quantity
207 N. Polk St.
1 1 . Exxon Small Quantity
108 Polk Street
12. Alpha Chemical & Plastic Corp. Small Quantity
9635 Industrial Dr.
13. Charlotte Mecklenburg Creek WWTP Small Quantity
Hwy 521
14. EC Manufacturing Conditionally Exempt
413 N. Polk St.
III. SITE INSPECTION
The subject property consists of a partially wooded and partially cleared, yet overgrown tract
which lies along the eastern banks of Little Sugar Creek. The subject property is bordered to
the south by Highway 51, to the east by commercial access road, to the north and west by
commercial properties. ESI personnel inspected the site and its boundaries on March 8 and
9, 1995, for visible evidence of hazardous or toxic materials, wastes, or other potential
sources of contamination. ESI personnel did not observe obvious evidence of abandoned
structures/equipment, air emissions, industrial activities, waste water discharge, distressed
vegetation, agricultural wastes (pesticides/herbicides dumping), ASTs, USTs, or transformers.
Minor incidents of debris observed along the road and creek.
In addition to the three monitoring wells installed by ESI, several peizometers previously
installed on the site were observed during the site reconnaissance (see Appendix 1, Photos
5 & 6). ESI personnel evaluated stained soils and oil sheens adjacent to culverts that divert
stormwater from adjacent properties to the east and south, across the subject property to
Little Sugar Creek (see Appendix 1, Photos 2-4).
One soil sample was taken at a point documented in Photo #3 and analyzed by EPA Method
9071 (oil and grease). The analytical results indicate that this sample contained elevated
levels of oil and grease; however, these levels did not exceed the action level as outlined by
DEM. Additionally, a water sample was taken during a stormwater event and analyzed for the
presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and volatiles by EPA Methods 5030,
9071, 601, and 602, respectively. Results were reported as below detection limits for each
method. See Appendix 2 for laboratory results. While extensive stormwater run-off from
parking areas is common in commercially developed areas, it is logical to assume that this site
has the potential for impact by constituents contained in the run-off.
10
IV. AREA RECONNAISSANCE
The area reconnaissance was limited to accessible state and county roads in the vicinity of the
site. Properties located within the search area consist predominantly of industrial and
commercially developed properties with the exception of some residential properties located
to the east and south of the subject property. Generally, the presence of underground storage
tanks (USTs) raises concern for potential spills and/or releases from usage (or neglect) over
time. Potential contaminant sources might include active and/or abandoned gasoline stations,
active and/or abandoned commercial entities, small businesses (such as automobile body
shops, paint shops, furniture manufacturing facilities, service stations), and other similar
entities which could potentially impact (or become impacted from) the site. A list was
prepared of facilities within the vicinity which included commercial or industrial properties
which may be potential sources of contamination. This list includes 13 automotive repair/gas
stations, nine manufacturing facilities, 13 commercial entities, and two hospitals. The list is
provided in Appendix 2. The list does not include features identified on maps and aerial
photographs which could not be field checked due to limitations and constraints associated
with access restrictions on private property. Search efforts could be expanded if access to
private property is obtained.
11
V. CONCLUSIONS
Potential environmental concerns within the Little Sugar Creek Site and its' respective vicinity
appear to be limited to potential impacts from any of the following: fourteen (14) registered
underground storage tank (UST) sites, fourteen (14) hazardous waste generators, and an
unknown number of emergency management spills. More significant environmental concerns
include five (5) leaking UST incidents and the storm water run-off from adjacent properties
that has potentially impacted the subject property. One NPL site is listed with a Pineville,
North Carolina address only. Additional research is required to determine whether the NPL site
it is located within a 1.0 mile radius of the subject property.
Other than the concerns indicated above, reconnaissance of surrounding properties within the
respective search radii of the site revealed no evidence of sources of pollution/contamination
which could adversely affect mitigation efforts.
12
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information obtained during this review, it appears that a low to moderate
potential exists for identified conditions which may impose a significant environmental liability
on the subject property. Additional efforts related to determining the potential impact from
stormwater run-off and leaking UST incidents identified on adjacent properties may provide
further insight.
13
VII. REFERENCES
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fort Mill Quadrangle, North Carolina/South Carolina, 7.5'
Topographic Map, 1980.
Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembly, Inactive Hazardous Site Program,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, February 1994.
"Groundwater Section Guidelines For The Investigation and Remediation of Soil and
Groundwater." North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section, March 1993.
14
PHCTCGPAPHS
PROJECT TITLE: Little Sugar Creek
LOCATION: Pineville, N.C.
JOB NUMBER: CR94-018.5
DATE: Marc, 7, 1995
ICJ
E

Photo 5: The installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
Photo 6: Previously installed groundwater monitoring wells.
•
•
PHOTOGRAPHS
PROJECT TITLE: Little Sugar Creek
LOCATION: Pineville, N.C.
JOB NUMBER: ER94-018.5
DATE: March 7, 1995
Photo 3: Stained soil and oil sheens at the base of the aforementioned culvert.
7
(
(D
Zx O
C-0
N
:3 (D CD
O?
cnC.
N 0 N
1C n_
0 ? CD
D? X, CI)
Z --:
n m
r 3.
0
a bd
w :5
m
cO
co
o_
2 00
cn
c
N
C
`G Cn
_ 3
CO ?
w
o_
0

/

° ,

'
I I : 1

I I I '

i
III',
I
I I
I ? ':
' IIIII
mIIIII
I ? , ? ? ? I I 'III ';

I LI I II
o Ln
I I II
? Q I I ? ,° ?? ?I IIII
CD I I ?N ") °I?I? I II

rn
y ?' I gl ?gI?I I
?
! I o wl I?I
?I?II
o n I I -' I y l s?l?l I !

?
? c
o ?

I

I ? r

?

?' ,

171 ?I?I I
oo o
) I I "+ r ?: I I ?I?I I
` I I N
J ?' I I Bbl I
cn ° _? ? I I i I I',sIII
o N `C-)? I I o I I III

C° r2 <
I
1 G CO ?_ I I I. I I I
O
?
n ? ? I I : ?IS V I I I
? I I I \III
=r ; ° I \I II

co z I I ??
?' I II
n cn I I I II
? I I I II
rn I I I II
? I I I II '
ML 300' LT. STA. 5+50 ML 309 LT. $TA. l' ML 300' LT.:STA. 7+OQ ML 300' LT. STA. 5+00 ML 900' LT. STA. 9+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 10+00

0
0 0 o
q C11
A. Vl W CT J7 4
o O O C O

9
M. t9 aD -.4 '.
z
tA
w ML 300' LT. STA 15+00 ! ML 300.' LT. STA. 16+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 16+50
o I _ ..
"
^' _I. Itlll I _ _ ? i _
c I I I ,III I I I
I i II I I I
? ? I I I `II I I? 1'
CD 0o
I I
i I
I II I
I
I
I
I:
Z II I
n(p I I o
'I
l I .

N
:3 (D
a
0
f
y
I
c I i

?O
=? II
n
Nn?tQ i I
I I 'I I
I
?
i I
I I'
?
I
s I;
.
o
? Im
D I I "I
X"
c')
I I I I 1 I i
C7 i
ICI I I I
1 I ICI I I I

I I isl 1
I<I I I 1
1
1
V ill I

I 1

1

: I I I 1
o
o
I I I 1
I I I', \

1
: I ! 1 j

`G I 1 '1 1
N ? °• r ?
'o ?
t 1 1 \
! 1 \
c \ 1 ! 1 -
\
tz. ? ? co m
Q
1\
11
'I 1
\

m v, CD
cD
\
1
1
\
?7 ? •010 ° p,
z -I
--I
r
1
1 1 f
•p ?-?• ?,
v Q c7 .
D 11 1 1
co
cn
--L o
00
0'a?
Z
1
1
\
I
M co

-? 1 \ 1 is
D i 1 1'' , 1
I 1 \ I:

V] 71 .O I I I I'

Q I 1 I

L
cr,
rn rn
rn a, ! cn?
ago
+,
o? w+
o? U,+
cm
cD

Cr W ? Cc"77 W LTI P w W A vii W ?p W Ca A C?c? W A
c;n
O o 0 0 0 0 o p O O p p O p O
-
O o O
K
CD o
Z'c o
CD OCCl)Q
-�� cQ
0
N0)
jC n
0�(�
A 77(j)
Z r:
0 tD
r
t
t
I
�!
'D
�
Q
c
C
t
�
I
C
0
a.
Gd
cn
ccM
1
3
v
CDa
O
m
a
�T
C�
PK -
go
w
co
Cb
r
00
2F
Qn
D
a
CLn
Z
Z
yl� I i
�Is i I
00
o"CD
C.
6
r
t
t
I
�!
'D
�
>
o
t
�
I
C
0
o
C/)cn
cn
ccM
1
3
v
CDa
O
1
a
�T
C�
PK -
go
w
co
Cb
r
o5
Z
2F
Qn
D
a
CLn
Z
yl� I i
�Is i I
O
o"CD
C.
`<
4lzl
�I i I y;1 ,
�
a
�
NI s �Illol
o
CD
i
�^'
�,
I I I SII i�l
O
N
t
z
I I
G
cn
''
cn^^ ,
t
rn I
I
r
t
t
I
�!
t
�
>
o
t
�
I
C
0
0
0
w
>
o
C-
C
`G
cn
\
1
3
1
O
1
co
U
1
\
1
\
1
\
1
1
SIF � II I it
yl� I i
�Is i I
4lzl
�I i I y;1 ,
o
NI s �Illol
o
I gl I
�I �I�III�1
�^'
�,
I I I SII i�l
q
I I
I IsI
cn
e
I I
IMI I'.
ML 300' LT. STA. 15+00
ML 300' LT. STA. 16+00''
w
0
ccn w
o c o
w w
c a c

APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING CALCULATIONS
Well Number. CSC ?z-/
Computed By: _
Casing diameter d =
Borehole diameter D = 2-0- 3 Z
Length of screen L =
Time lag at 0.37 H/Ho T = 4 74?
Date: 3C) A',r 9 T
G< /"/" C
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(seconds)
k = d2 In C 2mL m =1
h D
8 LT
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn & Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal
/kvertical
Assume kh = kv = 1 x to 17
h
Little Sugar Creek PZ-1
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
1.00
s
s
7
6
5
\
4 \
O \
2
= 3
2 i
i
i
i
I '
0.10 \
476
0.00 400.00 800.00 1200.00
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
..WELL NO. L ? C /'7-
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER Z " (S,UoO,
BOREHOLE DIAMETER Re' (
SCREEN DEPTH
REFERENCE POINT
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED
LOCATION Z-,771
????4? lip o?
DATE y 9S
TIME
COMPUTED BY
ASSISTED BY
PERSONS OBSERVING 13 Z-1 #
EVACUATION METHOD A
STATIC WATER LEVEL L
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
TIME/(s , GROUNDWATER
DEPTH H H/Ha
O 7, (f) Z
? v 7, z 7 T D,
7S 7,//
7 d 3 4'l 5,
z ° 2 4? 3oo d? gl ZT
/yd ,3q 3.9s o,73y
2- L(a ?0 / 3, f7 d, 41-6?
'3 o() S, ?? 3l o,S7
3(6 y 9 Z, ?S rJ, 4 Ss

`add ?;q7 /,S O.Z,?
add 3, ?/ l //7 7
7s° 3.5? l< ? v 2/0
y0d 3.10 4'
lZ,? 3, /a 0, ? 0.12J

-TOTES
Well Number: Z SC Casing diameter

Borehole diameter
Length of screen
Time lag at 0.37 H/Ho
Date: 3
Computed By: /I fS
d = S, o?
D = ZU. 3 2
L = /(5.
T = 7P d
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(seconds)
kh = d2 In I Z D L
8 LT
m=1
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn be Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal/kvertical
Assume kh = kv =1
kh =
?'«/??
2<Sx(0
Little Sugar Creek PZ-2
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
1.00 \
9
8
7
6
5
4
i
O
= 3
i
,
2
,
,
0.10
7? U
0 400 800 1200 1600
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
-fELL NO. G?C PZ - Z-
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER Z
BOREHOLE DIAMETER_
SCREEN DEPTH
REFERENCE POINT aC
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED
LOCATION L%T7'/P fe-?ti' Cro??'
DATE
_8 ?. yr 9 S
TIME
COMPUTED BY
ASSISTED BY
PERSONS OBSERVING
EVACUATION METHOD
STATIC WATER LEVEL 9, f 7
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
TIME GROUNDWATER
DEPTH H H/Ho

D

-71 /
1K, 7 ?.?Z 0?9s8
?o 1(,37 Z o,94
z o 9 3 S
120 l?. 7 ?. ? v , ?1 ?-
rho 1? 5. 7) ?. 36 'o,
216 15--3-9 6.0 z 0 3
300 I S< z S o
24 /v, s S, vs o. 7o
2j ?l o,
7 20
D, 58 Z
7Sd 12, 3 3? 67
700 12, i l z < S? ? , 3 52-
126 C) 64 z ?< ZS o, l 7-?,
?So 0 /v, 33 ?, TS odor

-OTES
Well Number: Ls,-- 11z 3 Date: io<111(4
Computed By: R ° (faxej
Casing diameter d = S a? (cm)
Borehole diameter D = Zo, 3 z (cm)
Length of screen L = (cm)
Time lag at 0.37 WHO T = Z (seconds)
k = d2ln [ 2mL1 m=1
h D J
8 LT
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn be Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal
?kvertical
Assume kh = kv =1
kh ( 5 -
(
k(0 ( m??Y
S76
Little Sugar Creek PZ-3
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
T-
Z
1.00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.01
0 200 400 600
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
LL NO. 5(f 12-3
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER :
BOREHOLE DIAMETERS '
SCREEN DEPTH
REFERENCE POINT 7v c
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED
LOCATION L, Tt/P So 9 CrP? ?r
DATE
TIME
COMPUTED BY GAL,/,iaf f
ASSISTED BY
PERSONS OBSERVING 6
EVACUATION METHOD
STATIC WATER LEVEL C. g-,6-
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
Tam GROUNDWATER
D
H
EEPT H H/H,
`
g
'

Z,
-, ?. Z9
366 Z ?f /, S? O.365
3(a 7(d 1,2-( o,-2 7?
qzo 7, sq F, 215
y?ro 7, jZ o,/Sz
?. z 7y

- fOTES
tf)
N
rn U >.
W
0
w u
N
y r7
a w A
I
I I
i
I r
i
CL
U C.0
r
?
V a m
% L
?o C"
?-
U)
0
Cf)
CD ?.
j U) (AZ
c
Q.
N ! ? ?•? HOC
r a) ?O
i
_ c?
T C
U?
I i
I j
i
i i
i i
I i
kn
O O O O O O C) S cni
CO L6 d cli N o " ?r
ANA
e6eaols ? ; I
Site I - 2 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Storage Stage (El.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
2 30 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
3 60 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
4 90 0.01 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
5 120 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
6 150 0.01 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
7 180 0.01 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
8 210 0.01 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
9 240 0.02 0.021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
10 270 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
11 300 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
12 330 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
13 360 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
14 390 0.02 0.021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
15 420 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
16 450 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
17 480 0.02 0.021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
18 5101 0.02 0.021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
19 540 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
20 570 0.06 0.051 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
21 6001 0.07 0.05 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
22 630 0.08 0.06 0.02 2.00 0.00 0.10 545.0
23 660 0.12 0.08 0.041 3.00 0.00 0.20 545.0
24 690 0.15 0.08 1 0.07 6.00 1.00 0.40 545.1
25 720 1 0.35 0.14 1 0.211 15.00 1.00 0.70 545.1
26 750 1 1.23 0.26 0.97 64.00 4.00 2.20 545.4
27 780 0.20 0.03 1 0.17 34.00 6.00 4.10 545.7
28 810 1 0.14 0.02 1 0.12 17.00 7.00 4.80 545.9
29 840 1 0.09 0.01 1 0.081 10.00 7.00 5.10 545.9
30 870 1 0.07 0.01 1 0.06 7.001 7.00 5.20 545.9
31 900 1 0.06 0.01 1 0.051 6.00 7.00 5.10 545.9
32 930 1 0.03 0.00 1 0.031 3.00 7.00 5.00 545.9
33 960 1 0.03 0.00 1 0.03 2.001 7.001 4.80 545.9
34 990 1 0.021 0.00 1 0.021 2.00 7.001 4.60 545.9
351 1020 1 0.02 0.001 0.02 2.001 7.00 4.40 545.8
36 10501 0.021 0.001 0.02' 2.001 6.00 4.20 1 545.7
37 10801 0.02 0.00i 0.021 1.001 6.00 4.00 545.7
38 11101 0.021 0.001 0.021 1.001 6.00 3.80 545.7
39 11401 0.02 0.001 0.021 1.00 6.00 3.60 1 545.6
40 11701 0.02 0.001 0.02 1 1.00 1 6.00 3.40 545.6
41 12001 0.02 0.001 0.02 1 1.00 1 6.00 3.20 1 545.6
42 12301 0.02 1 0.001 0.02 1 1.00 1 6.00 3.00 545.5
43 12601 0.01 0.00 0.01 1 1.00 5.00 2.80 1 545.5
44 12901 0.01 0.001 0.01 1 1.00 5.00 1 2.70 545.5
45 1 13201 0.01 0.001 0.01 1 1.00 1 5.00 2.50 545.4
46 13501 0.01 0.001 0.01 1.00 5.00 2.40 545.4
47 13801 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.00 4.00 2.20 545.4
48 14101 0.01 0.001 0.01 1.00 1 4.00 2.10 545.4
49 14401 0.01 0.001 0.01 1 1.00 4.00 2.00 545.4
50 14701 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 4.00 1 1.80 545.3
51 15001 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 3.00 1.70 545.3
52 15301 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.60 545.3
53 15601 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.50 545.3
54 1 15901 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 3.00 1.30 1 545.2
55 16201 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 1.20 545.2
56 16501 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.10 545.2
Page 1
Site I - 2 year flood
57 1680 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.101 545.2
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 545.2
59 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.90 545.2
60 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.80 545.1
61 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.80 545.1
62 18301 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.70 545.1
63 1860 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 1.00 0.60 545.1
64 18901 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.60 545.1
65 1920 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.001 0.60 545.1
66 1950 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 545.1
67 1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 545.1
681 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 545.1
69 2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 545.1
70 2070 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 545.1
71 2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.001 0.30 545.1
72 2130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 545.1
73 21601 0.00 0.00 0.00 --5700T - 1.00 0.30 545.1
74 21901 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 1.001 0.30 545.0
75 2220 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.20 545.0
76 2250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.20 545.0
77 22801 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.20 545.0
78 23101 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.20 545.0
79 2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.20 545.0
80 2370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.20 545.0
81 2400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 545.0
82 2430 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 545.0
83 2460 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.10 545.0
84 2490 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
85 2520 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.10 545.0
86 2550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
87 2580 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
88 2610 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
89 2640 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
90 2670 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
91 2700 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
92 2730 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 1 545.0
93 1 2760 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1. 0.00 1 0.10 1 545.0
94 2790 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 1 545.0
95 2820 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.10 545.0
1
Totals 3.231 1.10! 2.13 189.001
Page 2
rn
rn U ,
2 5
W -?
O
O
M
o eo ?
w w A
O
co
O
N
O
O
r ?
N .U
C co z
C
Q.
co
'C'U
O =CZ?
r O?
C)
r- U Co
I i
i I I N
I I I I 1_
! I I -
I -
I I I ??
1
O
y
LO O LO O LO O LO O $
t` LO N O t` U') N N
r r r ?- ?
A N oio
(SP) MOIJ ?y

I I

I'
I
I I

I t I
II

? I
x I
mo 'I

I

I O19 C ? ?

I
I LL I
m i

> I

? i
I I I
I i
Site 1 - 50 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) j Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs)1 Outflow (cfs) Storage Stage (El.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
2 30 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
3 60 0.031 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
4 90 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
5 120 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
6 150 0.04 0.04' 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
7 1801 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
8 210 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
9 240 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
10 270 0.051 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
11 300 0.051 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
12 330 0.05 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.0 0.1 545.0
13 360 0.05 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.0 0.1 545.0
14 390 1 0.07 0.04 0.03 2.00 0.0 0.1 545.0
15 420 0.07 0.04 0.03 2.00 0.0 0.2 545.0
16 450 0.08 1 0.04 0.04 3.00 1.0 0.3 545.0
17 480 0.08 0.041 0.04 3.00 1.0 0.4 545.1
18 510 0.09 0.04 0.05 4.00 1.0 0.3 545.1
19 540 1 0.10 0.041 0.06 5.00 1.0 0.7 545.1
20 570 1 0.11 i 0.041 0.07 6.00 2.0 0.8 545.1
21 600 1 0.12 1 0.04 0.08 7.00 2.0 1.0 545.2
22 630 1 0.15 1 0.04 0.11 9.00 2.0 1.3 545.2
231 660 1 0.23 1 0.0611 0.17 13.00 3.0 1.6 545.3
24 690 1 0.31 1 0.06 0.25 19.00 4.0 2.1 545.4
25 7201 0.65 1 0.10 0.55 40.00 6.0 3.2 545.6
26 7501 2.65 i 0.18 1 2.47 163.00 24.0 6.8 546.3
27 7801 0.39 0.01 0.38 83.00 52.0 10.3 546.7
28 8101 0.27 1 0.01 1 0.26 38.00 54.0 10.6 546.7
291 8401 0.17 1 0.01 0.16 21.00 49.0 9.7 546.7
30 8701 0.14 1 0.01 0.13 14.00 41.0 8.6 546.6
311 9001 0.12 0.01 0.11 11.00 34.0 7.5 546.5
321 9301 0.11 1 0.01 1 0.10 10.00 24.0 6.8 546.3
331 9601 0.101 0.00 1 0.10 9.00 17.0 6.3 546.2
34 9901 0.091 0.00 1 0.09 8.00 13.0 6.0 546.1
351 10201 0.081 0.00 1 0.081 7.001 11.0 5.8 546.1
361 10501 0.071 0.00 1 0.07 7.001 9.0 5.7 1 546.0
371 10801 0.071 0.00 1 0.07 6.001 8.0 5.6 1 546.0
381 11101 0.051 0.00 0.05 5.00 8.0 5.6 546.0
39 1 114011 0.051 0.00 0.05 1 5.00 7.0 5.4 546.0
40 1 1170i 0.05; 0.00 1 0.05 4.00 1 7.0 5.3 545.9
41 1 12001 0.05! 0.00 1 0.05 4.00 1 7.0 5.2 545.9
42 12301, 0.041 0.00 1 0.04 4.00 7.0 5.0 545.9
43 1 12601 0.041 0.00 0.04 4.00 7.0 4.9 545.9
44 12901 0.0411 0.00 0.04 4.00 7.0 4.7 545.8
45 13201 0.041 0.001 0.04 3.00 7.0 4.6 545.8
46 13501 0.041 0.001 0.04 3.00 1 7.0 4.4 545.8
47 13801 0.041 0.001 0.04 3.00 7.0 4.3 545.8
48 1 14101 0.031 0.00 0.03 3.00 6.0 4.1 545.7
49 14401 0.031 0.001 0.03 3.00 6.0 4.0 545.7
50 14701 0.001 0.001 0.00 1.00 6.0 3.8 545.7
51 1 15001 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 6.0 3.6 545.6
52 15301 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 6.0 3.3 545.6
53 J 15601 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 6.0 3.1 545.6
54 1 15901 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 5.0 2.9 545.5
55 1 16201 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 5.0 2.6 545.5
56 1 16501 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 5.0 2.4 545.4
Page 1
Site 1 - 50 year flood
57 16801 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 2.2 545.4
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 2.1 545.4
59 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 1.9 545.3
60 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.8 545.3
61 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.6 545.3
62 1830 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.5 545.3
63 18601 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 3.0 1.4 545.2
64 1890 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.3 545.2
65 19201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.2 545.2
66 19501 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.1 545.2
67 19801 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 2.0 1.0 545.2
68 2010 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 2.0 0.9 545.2
69 20401 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 2.0 0.9 545.2
70 2070 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.8 545.1
71 2100 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1.0 0.8 545.1
72 2130 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.7 545.1
73 2160 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1.0 0.6 545.1
74 2190 1 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1.0 0.6 545.1
75 2220 1 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1.0 0.5 545.1
76 2250 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 1 0.5 545.1
77 22801 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 0.4 I 545.1
78 23101 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 0.4 545.1
79 23401 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 1 0.4 545.1
80 23701 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.0 0.4 1 545.1
81 24001 0.00, 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 0.3 545.1
82 24301 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.0 0.3 545.1
83 24601, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1.0 0.3 1 545.0
84 24901 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.3 545.0
85 25201 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1, 0.0 0.2 1 545.0
86 25501 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.2 1 545.0
87 25801 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.2 1 545.0
88 26101 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.0 1 0.2 1 545.0
89 264011 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.0 1 0.2 545.0
90 26701 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.0 1 0.2 1 545.0
91 27001 0.00 0.0011 0.00i 0.00 1 0.01 0.1 1 545.0
92 27301 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 545.0
93 2760! 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 545.0
94 1 27901 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 545.0
95 28201 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1!1 545.0
96 28501 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.01 0.11 545.0
97 28801 0.00 1 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.11 545.0
98 1 2910 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.01 0.1 545.0
99 29401 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 545.0
100 29701 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.0 0.11 545.0
101 30001 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 545.0
102 30301 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.01 0.11 545.0
103 1 30601 0.00 1 0.00 0.00! 0.001 0.01 0.11 545.0
104 30901 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.01 0.1 545.0
105 31201 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0

Total 7.31 1.27 1 8.58 i
Page 2
LO
L rn
rn U>.
CC 3
W
O
co
U
(Y% O .3
O Op q
dr r -NLvAT
I Ir
OWMNLLca M
F
10
Co ON'WrOti
rUA�JO_ va�)�
(z
CZ
O aY
NO00 C) C)
(D w6R,Nd��N) N$NUZ
(SIO) Mow
�-
�
a
m
I I
II
�
3
�
i
I
I
I
�I
I
I
i
I
�
I
I
I

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK SITE
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP (R-0211 DA)
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
AUGUST 1995
''pp?? „` 5441E o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 11, 1995
i
Regulatory Branch ('
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Cc?'
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
r
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Mecklenburg County - Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site for
Charlotte Outer Loop from Interchange with NC 51 to Interchange
with Rea Road; T.I.P. Nos. R-0211DA, DD and DB; State Project No.
8.1670102; DOA Action ID. 199200013
Reference your correspondence of October 16, 1995, which listed your
comments on the site plan for the Little Sugar Creek mitigation site in
Charlotte. Your recommendations will be incorporated into the final
construction plan as follows:
1) It is anticipated that the property will provide approximately
sixteen acres of restored/created wetlands. This represents the
maximum area possible out of the twenty-two acre parcel owned by
NCDOT at this location. This should compensate for the deficit in
acreage restored at the Mallard Creek mitigation site. The
as-built plan illustrating the constructed area will be forwarded
to you upon construction and planting of the Little Creek site.
Follow-up monitoring reports will be used to demonstrate success or
failure in achieving the required acreage. In the event that the
success criteria are not met, NCDOT will coordinate remediation
measures or alternative sites.
2) Prior to grading, the top 15 cm (6 in) of soil will be removed and
stockpiled for reuse on site once grading of the site has been
completed. This will provide a suitable growing medium for the
seedlings.
3) We acknowledge the presence of small areas of jurisdictional
wetlands associated with existing drainage features onsite. Please
note that these locations have been included in the total area to
be planted and/or graded. This was done because these areas will
be modified under the proposed construction plans.
(9
December 11, 1995
Page 2
4) Revised copies of Figures 7 and 8 are attached. These copies
include additional explanation of numbers and symbols.
5) The depth to bedrock at the Little Sugar Creek site is 3 to 5 m (10
to 16 ft) below the depositional surface of the floodplain. It is
anticipated that grading across the site will remove approximately
1.2 m (4 ft), with an additional removal of 0.3 m (1 ft) within
swale areas and 1.5 m (5 ft) within entry and exit pool areas.
Generally, unweathered bedrock should not be exposed. In addition,
it is anticipated that minimal saprolitic material will be exposed.
Therefore hydraulic conductivity of the soil should not be impeded
and scarifying the soil prior to re-spreading the topsoil should
minimize compaction from the grading process.
While the mechanical means to control the water level in Pods I and
II are the same, the relative relief within Pod II is 0.6 m (2 ft)
lower than in Pod I. In addition, the hydroperiod can be regulated
at the water control structure, if conditions warrant.
6) In response to your request for a full explanation of the water
control structures and maintenance, the following information is
offered:
The Little Sugar Creek wetland mitigation site functions just like
a Stormwater management pond. As Stormwater flows into the wetland,
approximately the first inch of runoff is stored and then released
over a period of time (40 hours or more). The routing of this flow
was modeled by utilizing the HEC-I Flood Hydrograph Package.
Inflow was provided to the model by developing an SCS (Soil
Conservation Service) dimensionless unit hydrograph in which
rainfall data was developed from TP-40 (Rainfall Frequency Atlas of
the United States). A 2 year, 24 hour hydrograph and a 50 year, 24
hour hydrograph were developed for the proposed sites and routed
through the control structures for Sites I & II.
Site I controls runoff from 44.5 acres. This site has two inflow
points with the most northern (Station 17 + 00) being a 54 inch
pipe and the second being a 36 inch pipe (Station 11 + 00). The
54 inch pipe drains 26 acres of impervious runoff from the adjacent
shopping complex and the 36 inch pipe drains 6 acres +/- from the
same shopping complex and was considered impervious. The remaining
12.5 acres consist of the area around Site I as well as Site I.
Discharge from Site I will be controlled by two outlet structures
working in series.
The outlet structures consist of 4ft.x4ft. concrete risers with
30 inch concrete outlet pipes. The risers contain two 12 inch
ductile iron pipes with control valves. One valve is a control
orifice for Site I's water surface. This valve will be used to
adjust the water surface elevation as well as increase or decrease
the detention time for the wetland. The second control valve will
be used to drain the wetland or lower the water surface elevation.
By adjusting these valves after construction a desirable water
surface elevation can be obtained to maintain target wetland. For
December 11, 1995
Page 3
the Charlotte area there are 20 plus one inch rainfalls per year.
With this amount of rain there should be no problem maintaining the
water surface elevation to within one foot of the ground surface
except during times of drought.
Site II controls runoff from 95 acres. The first inch of runoff
from the 95 acres will be diverted to Site II through a 30-inch
Reinforced Concrete Pipe. This diversion was chosen because Site II
is relatively small (2.5 acres) when compared to the overall
drainage area, therefore diverting the first inch of runoff was
felt to be the most practical way to maintain the wetland and treat
pollutants without overloading the wetland system. Base flow will
be maintained in the stream by installation of a weir.
A stormdrain system also discharges into Site II and has a drainage
area of 2.1 acres. Discharge from Site II will be controlled in
the same manner as Site I, with one 4ft.x4ft. riser with a 30-inch
outlet pipe, one control orifice and one drain valve.
Emergency spillways will be installed to handle excessive flows.
The proposed perimeter embankment will not be overtopped during the
50 year storm.
Other features include deep water cells with forebays (wet ponds),
and will be particularly important to reduce the accumulated
sediment in the wetland. Swells will be installed throughout the
wetland to distribute flow between the ponds and micropools.
Access roads are included to facilitate cleanout of forebays,
planting, and adjusting control orifices. The access roads will be
seeded to maintain a more natural appearance.
Maintenance requirements for the wetland will generally consist of
inspecting the facility twice a year for the first year and then
annually thereafter. During the inspections, the structures will
be checked for debris, the valves will be greased, and any mowing
needed will be done. Periodic mowing may be necessary on the access
roads and embankment.
The design life of the control structures is considered indefinite
since they are to be constructed of concrete.
7) We concur that an observation period between initial establishment
of hydrology and planting of the site will offer time to make minor
site adjustments. Our proposed construction sequence is as
follows:
1. Install 4' x 4' outlet structures 2 and 3.
2. Install erosion control devices.
3. Excavate sites I and II.
4. Install temporary diversion channel.
5. Construct access roads.
6. Stabilize all disturbed areas.
December 11, 1995
Page 4
7. Install outlet structure 1.
8. Construct emergency spillways.
9. Upon completion of outlet structures, embankments, and
emergency spillways, stabilize any remaining areas. (Sluice
gates on structures should be left open upon installation.)
10. Install weir.
11. Plant seedlings.
Further discussion of the construction schedule follows this list.
For your reference, attached is a copy of the plan drawings to be
used for construction.
Tree species and the abundance of each, as recommended in the
planting scheme, were selected based on local Reference Ecosystem
data and pertinent scientific literature. However, Shumard oak and
overcup oak have been added to the planting scheme and the total
percentage of tulip poplar and eastern cottonwood have been
reduced.
The purpose for planting wetland herbaceous plants within the
swales and pool areas of the major wetland communities is to lower
the nutrient level of the storm water passing through the system
and to accelerate the development of hydric soils. Both cattail
and soft rush have been shown to be good species for nutrient
up-take; in addition, cattail is known to increase the rate of
hydric soil production due to rapid organic deposition. Therefore,
it would be prudent to plant these two species rather than to rely
on natural recuritment.
8) Sampling of vegetative plots will be conducted within both the
scrub shrub and bottomland hardwood communities. We have also
considered your suggestion to monitor soils for the development of
hydric characteristics. NCDOT maintains that quantitative
monitoring of the vegetation and hydrology should be sufficient to
determine if the success criteria are met. Since it may take much
longer than the specified three-year monitoring period for the
development of redoximorphic features, we do not believe that
short-term changes in soil characteristics should be a determining
factor in our evaluation standards.
The Little Sugar Creek mitigation site has been set up as a separate
construction project within NCDOT (T.I.P. No. R-0211DG). The construction
plans and contract are under preparation in accordance with the Compensatory
Mitigation Plan for Little Sugar Creek Site (August 1995) by Environmental
Services, Inc. The revisions discussed herein will be considered an addendum
to this document. NCDOT has established a let date of February 1996 for this
project. This is the earliest date possible to complete the engineering plans
and contract specifications. Following selection of a contractor,
construction will be initiated in April 1996. The hydraulic control
structures, elevations and other preliminary site preparations will be
established first. This will allow several months for the new site hydrology
to become established prior to planting. The scrub shrub and bottomland
seedlings will be planted following the 1995 growing season deadline
(November 15). This schedule will provide two advantages. First, the
December 11, 1995
Page 5
observation period between grading and planting will allow time to make
changes to the elevations and/or water control structures, as necessary.
Second, bare-root seedlings planted outside the growing season will have more
time to adapt to their new setting, and therefore will stand a better chance
of surviving the first year.
Please note that this construction and planting schedule
will require an extension of the current December 31, 1995 deadline for
establishment of this mitigation site. We hereby request an extension to
complete site preparations and plantings by December 31, 1996.
We appreciate your contributions to the detailed site plans for this
mitigation project. If you have any questions, please contact Cyndi Bell at
[phone], Extension 306. A
VncerSig,ly
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Project Management Unit
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tom Shearin P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. B.G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. W. D. Johnson, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Shoemaker, Right-of-Way

1? ? n
E9
.?? tn
?.o
l ?s ; N
o?
cn +
l co? 541.00 w?
+ Ln N NO
O ?
W 00
00
O
to
® N O
oo ! co °NO TH
?I N c0
O o Oo
C +
0 C7 z _
rrl
to CD CD ?
L/)O
nCC
`° -4- ° ??Oo
?C) ID ::g
00
Z (D -0 D
m
-+ _ O
A
_ + o - C
C7 CD Ln 00 N N
-4- ID
-t cn / 11 m o m Q o
O (c?8 z to 3 60, a Rt
Cfl T
Q O O 0 w C7 Z 5R CD
O ' 11
CO 0
ca 0
(D 7
O
O
536. `l ?i rn
o (A
0 cn
?w
ti
o v v o ED
a NNN, .? w
KOD Z ? ;? ?`? ? W r
p \ ?? I
;u C- rri
a
A G) '
N C
o m
0
v

i
co
Ii?O
0
rrt

=
(D
0 C7
O
(D
cr
O
O
c I CD CD
C) ? OZ
c
-? D
o rri
o
Z
o o
CD I
-
X

C) CD n• 70
0 0
_ Ln
:3
0 v
/.1
W
/
0
V n

O

? n
rr
?
z
O O
O
TI
C m

N
°
o co
a

s LA -r,
N

W ?
0
M

OD
NO TH
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK SITE
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP (R-211-DA)
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
Prepared for:
N.C. Department of Transportation
1 South Wilmington St.
Ralleigh, NC 27601
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 Dale St., Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
August, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................2
II. RATIONALE ..................................................4
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS ...................................... 5
Impacted Wetlands ....................................... 5.
Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded (PFO1 C) .............. 5
Palustrine open water (POW) ............................ 6
IV. MITIGATION GUIDELINES ........................................ 7
Mitigation Policy ......................................... 7
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA,
and Executive Order 11990 .............. 7
FWS Policy ............................................. 7
FHWA Policy ............................................7
Mitigation Sequencing ..................................... 8
Avoidence ..............................................8
Minimization ............................................8
Compensatory Mitigation ................................... 8
V. MITIGATION SITE ............................................. 9
Project Overview ......................................... 9
Existing Conditions ........................................ 9
Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ................... 9
Soils ............................................11
Plant Communities .................................. 11
Existing Hydrology .................................. 16
Wetlands ........................................16
Hazardous Materials ................................. 16
VI. MITIGATION PLAN ........................................... 21
Wetland Restoration Modeling ............................... 21
Hydrological Modeling ............................... 21
HEC-1 Model Description ........................ 21
HEC-1 Results Pre-restoration ..................... 21
DRAINMOD .......................................23
Model Results Pre-restoration ..................... 24
Reference Forest Ecosystem Modeling .................... 24
Wetland Restoration Methodology ............................ 27
Hydrological Restoration .............................. 27
DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration ................ 27
Plant Community Restoration ........................... 30
Planting Plan ................................. 32
Bottomland Hardwood Forest ..................... 32
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub .......................... 35
Palustrine Emergent ............................ 35
Planting Program ................................... 35
Wetland Soil Restoration ................................... 36
VII. MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 37
Hydrology Monitoring ..................................... 37
Hydrology Success Criteria ................................. 37
Vegetation ............................................37
Vegetation Success Criteria .. 38
Report Submittal ........................................ 38
Contingency ........................................... 39
VIII. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION ............................. 40
Bottomland, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFOIC) ................. 40
IX. DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................... 44
X. REFERENCES ................................................45
APPENDICES
1. Hazardous Materials Review, Charlotte Outer Loop, Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................. A
2. Hydrogeological Site Assessment For Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................................ B
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location Map ........................................... 3
Figure 2. Site Location Map ....................................... 10
Figure 3. Topography and Spot Elevations ............................. 12
Figure 4. Soils Map ............................................. 13
Figure 5. Hydric Soils ............................................ 14
Figure 6. Existing Plant Community .................................. 15
Figure 7. Groundwater Flow - April 5, 1995 ............................ 17
Figure 8. Depth to Groundwater - April 5, 1995 ......................... 18
Figure 9. Surface Hydrology ....................................... 19
Figure 10. Monitoring Wells ........................................ 22
Figure 11. Site Alteration Plan ...................................... 28
Figure 12. Typical Control Structure .................................. 29
Figure 13. Planting Plan ........................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES
Paae
Table 1. Wetland Impact - Types & Acreage ............................ 5
Table 2. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................ 24
Table 3. Reference Forest Ecosystems
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Plots Summary (Canopy Species) ...... 26
Table 4. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ................ 30
Table 5. Planting Regime - Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site ................ 34
Table 6. Expected Functions in Impacted Wetland Classes ................. 41
IV
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK SITE
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP (R-211 DA)
MECKENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) constructed a new controlled-
access, multi-lane divided roadway from NC 51 to Rea Road. This 5.4 mile roadway (R-
0211 DA) was opened in 1994 and will be incorporated into the 16.6 mile southern segment
of the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-021 1). The proposed action is included in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Comprehensive Plan and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan, and will provide a necessary connector through a rapidly developing urban area. The
plan has been adopted by the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the Towns of
Matthews, Mint Hill, and Pineville.
Wetlands within the R-021 1 DA corridor were found to be palustrine in nature, as defined by
Cowardin et a/. (1979). Wetland systems vary in vegetation composition depending upon
hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. Approximately 11.1 acres (4.5 hectares)
of wetlands were impacted by the construction (U.S. COE Permit 199200013).
A comprehensive mitigation plan has been developed for a 21-acre (8.5 hectare) site adjacent
to Little Sugar Creek in southwestern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The mitigation site
is bound by Little Sugar Creek to the west, Highway NC 51 to the south, and a shopping
center/small hospital complex to the east.
The project team made detailed analyses of existing ecological and hydrological conditions to
provide reasonable assurance of project success. Using surface water modeling (HEC-1) and
subsurface water modeling (DRAINMOD), it has been predicted that once site alterations are
completed, wetland hydrology (12.5% of the growing season) can be achieved on 16.1 acres
(6.5 hectares). Reference forest data coupled with recent literature sources were used to
predict appropriate vegetation plantings. Based on analysis of all data, 9.8 acres (4.0
hectares) will be returned as bottomland forest wetland, 3.2 acres (1.3 hectares) will be shrub-
scrub wetland, and 3.1 acres (1.2 hectares) will be emergent marsh.
This mitigation plan provides for restoration/creation of contiguous natural wetlands, which
will ensure the perpetual maintenance of characteristic wetland functions in this region.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) constructed a new controlled-
access, multi-lane divided roadway from NC 51 to Rea Road (Figure 1). This 5.4 mile roadway
(R-0211 DA) was opened in 1994 and will be incorporated into the 16.6 mile southern segment
of the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-021 1). The proposed action is included in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Comprehensive Plan and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan, and will provide a necessary connector through a rapidly developing urban area. The
plan has been adopted by the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the Towns of
Matthews, Mint Hill, and Pineville.
This report examines wetland encroachment and mitigation strategy for dealing with
anticipated wetland losses associated with development of R-21 1 DA (hereinafter referred to
as "Charlotte Outer Loop"). The information contained herein is intended to supplement and
support NCDOT's Section 404 permit and for 401 Water Quality Certification. The Section
404 permit application for R-0211 DA was submitted on September 16, 1991 and issued June
05, 1992. The mitigation plan outlines a method to replace wetland functions lost as a result
of this section the Charlotte Outer Loop, through compensatory mitigation.
2
�U
�4c
cu
v
i• U
,0 -a
c0 '
WOcz
o CC cra�
-0
CL
LQ
rcorn
LO
°)
o
NT
W�
w
b0
U
N
O
rR'
�y
w
a
A
N
U
C
a
O cz
�U
d0
o
c
Z
IL AY
oU o
ZOO
rnim
Q
=
Q.
0,
~
UzN
O
�U
OJr
o
0
U :�
O
N
o
rren^s
�%�,
,fir
.•/o`v
�sd z
' `kyr
♦ V
1
m
Y, ai M •�
v
�J
YIOw1M
dN
d x` @Pa��(!�iy.,l A
O
.s��'f�'"Y�r

I1. RATIONALE
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of
the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is primarily
responsible for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. The
COE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands are described as:
those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR
328.3(b), (1986)).
The COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination (DOA 1987).
Construction limits along the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop corridor were field checked for
jurisdictional wetlands in July 1991 by representatives from the COE, NCDOT, and N.C.
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). For the purpose of this assessment, the
corridor was assumed to be 300 feet in width. The entire alignment was walked and all
systems were evaluated as to jurisdictional status. Based on field evaluation and review of
proposed construction plans, wetland impacts were calculated. The mitigation strategy
proposed herein provides for compensation for these impacts.
It was assumed that former wetlands which appeared to be actively cultivated or utilized for
the production of farm commodities are "prior converted" (PC) croplands, and not subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the CWA. PC cropland is defined as
"wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove
excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent they no
longer exhibit typical wetland functions and values" (Section 512.15 of the National Food
Security Act Manual, August 1988). During the July 1991 field assessment, potential PC lands
were discussed and evaluated.
4
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
Impacted Wetlands
Wetlands within the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop corridor were found to be palustrine in
nature, as defined by Cowardin etas. (1979). Wetland systems vary in vegetation composition
depending upon hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. Approximately 11.1 acres
(ac) (4.5 hectares (ha)) of wetlands were impacted by the construction (U.S. COE Permit
199200013). Wetland types and associated acreage within the construction limits are listed
in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Wetland Impact - types & acreage
Palustrine forested Open Water
TOTAL
Segment broad-leaved deciduous (POW)
ac/ha
(PF01 C)
McAlpine Creek 2.8 0.1 2.9/1.2
McMullen Creek 5.7 0 5.7/2.3
unnamed tributaries 0.1 2.4 2.5/1.0
PROJECT TOTALS (ac/ha) 8.6/3.5 2.5/1.0 11.1/4.5
Although no quantitative methodology was employed to determine values of affected systems,
general wetland functions were evaluated based on best professional judgement using
parameters described in hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment technology (Brinson
1993, ESI 1994b). The following types have been identified:
Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO1_C
Impacted bottomland wetlands are concentrated within the floodplain of McAlpine Creek,
unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek, and McMullen Creek. Approximately 8.6 ac (3.5 ha)
of bottomland wetlands were impacted at these stream crossings by project construction of
the R-021 1 DA. Soil types occurring in these alluvial systems consist primarily of Monacan
loams (Fiuvaquentic Eutrochrepts). These soils are somewhat poorly drained and
characteristically found in small streams within the region. Characteristic canopy species
include sweet gum (Liquidambar styracifiua), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern cottonwood
(Popuius deitoides) willow oak (Quercus phe/%s), tulip popular (Liriodendron tu/ipifera), river
birch (Betuia nigra), black gum (Nyssa syivatica), American sycamore (Piatanus occidentaiis)
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsyivanica). Understory species include canopy species along
with slippery elm (Uimus rubra), red mulberry (Morus rubra), ironwood (Carpinus caroiiniana),
and black willow (Saiix nigra). Groundcover is usually sparse, relegated to pockets of lizard's
5
tail (Saururus cernuus), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areo/ata) around canopy gaps.
The hydrologic pathway for this community is primarily seasonal flooding from adjacent stream
channel flow and, to a lesser extent, upland runoff. Due to their landscape position,
bottomland communities act as major receptors of upland runoff and are therefore functionally
valuable ecosystems (Cooper et ai. 1986,1. Important biogeochemical functions performed
by floodplains which dissect urban/agricultural regions include removal of elements and
compounds, retention of particulates, and nutrient cycling (Brinson et ai. 1994). However, the
ability of these communities to remove and transform excess nutrient loads may have been
jeopardized by long-term land use practices and channelization. These bottomland systems
also act as buffers during times of flooding, reducing runoff rates and allowing for absorption
and infiltration (high value for flood-flow alteration).
Palustrine open water (POW)
Approximately 2.6 ac. (2.5 ha) of open water areas were impacted by Charlotte Outer Loop.
Open water systems include the stream area of McAlpine Creek and McMullen Creek. These
water systems are functionally connected, and are the driving force for the wetland areas
occurring within the floodplain of the two creeks. Therefore, impacts to these systems are
reflected in the adjacent wetland areas.
6
IV. MITIGATION GUIDELINES
Mitigation Policy
Mitigation for wetland losses from the proposed project is hereby recommended in compliance
with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), mitigation policy
mandates articulated in the COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA; Page and Wilcher
1990), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 (1977)), FWS mitigation policy directives (46
FR 7644-7663 (1981)), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stepdown procedures
(23 CFR 777.1-777.11). Mitigation has been defined in National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or
eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment (40 CFR 1508.22 (a-e)).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of "waters of the United
States." Practicable alternatives must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can
be discussed.
FWS policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses,
the FWS recommends that mitigation efforts be correlated with value and scarcity of the
habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four Resource Categories based on decreasing
importance and value, with subsequent decreases in mitigation planning objectives (46 FR
7657-7658). Forested wetlands within the project corridor would be considered Resource
Category 2 or 3 (high to moderate value) requires a mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat
(compensation through replacement of lost habitat value). Methods used to achieve this goal
include: the physical modification of replacement habitat (creation), restoration or rehabilitation
of previously altered habitat, increased management of similar replacement habitat so that in-
kind value of the lost habitat is replaced, or a combination of these measures.
FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harm
to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded highway construction. A sequencing
(stepdown) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible. First,
consideration must be given to providing for mitigation within highway right-of-way limits,
generally through enhancement, restoration, or creation. Mitigation employed outside of the
highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-Case basis. Measures
should be designed "to reestablish, to the extent reasonable, a condition similar to that which
would have existed if the project were not built" (23 CFR 777.9(b)).
7
Mitigation Sequencing
Existing policy guidelines on mitigation sequencing have been employed for this project.
Measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, and eliminate wetland impacts have been employed
where feasible. NCDOT's efforts at impact avoidance and minimization are more fully
addressed in the September 16, 1991 permit application.
Avoidance -Total avoidance was not a logical solution to eliminating impacts associated with
the proposed project area, as the alignment cannot be shifted to avoid all wetlands. In
addition, the economic and social costs associated with a "no action" alternative are
prohibitive. Current and future traffic problems are not resolved by avoiding needed
improvements.
Although construction impacted approximately 11 ac. (4.5 ha) of wetlands, every effort has
been made to avoid wetland communities whenever possible. Wetland crossings were
strategically designed to occur at narrow portions of creek floodplains in order to avoid
extensive wetland fringe areas.
Minimization - Impacts on wetlands adjacent to the corridor were minimized by implementing
erosion control measures such as seeding slopes, installation of silt fences, and the proper use
of sediment basins. Fill slopes through wetland areas were steepened to the maximum
practical (2:1), and lateral drainage ditches will be eliminated where feasible in order to reduce
wetland impacts. McAlpine Creek and McMullen Creek crossings were designed as close as
possible to perpendicular and are located in the narrowest available portions of the floodplain.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed for all unavoidable impacts resulting from construction
of the Charlotte Outer Loop. Primary consideration has been given to in-kind, on-site
replacement in keeping with FHWA stepdown procedures and other existing agency policies.
In all cases, replacement of lost wetland functions and values is considered paramount.
8
V. MITIGATION SITE
Project Overview
A 21 ac. (8.5 ha) site adjacent to Little Sugar Creek in southwestern Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina has been selected as mitigation for 11.1 ac. (4.5 ha) wetland impacts
associated with construction of the Charlotte Outer Loop. The mitigation site is bound by
Little Sugar Creek to the west, Highway NC 51 to the south, and a shopping center/small
hospital complex to the east (Figure 2).
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) personnel visited the mitigation site in March and April 1995
to evaluate existing conditions, confirm Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil
mapping, map hydric soils, conduct a hazardous waste review and to model site hydrology.
In addition, remaining forested areas on the site as well as other forested areas within the
region were surveyed, sampled, and described to establish a reference forest ecosystem (RFE)
for restoration planning. Soils samples were evaluated to correlate reference soil systems to
the wetland restoration area.,
Mitigation site hydrology was modeled for pre-mitigation and post-mitigation hydrological
inputs and outputs. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit assisted with this effort by utilizing HEC-1 model
(DOA 1993) to predict surface water conditions. A series of drainage swales and control
structures were designed to accommodate surface runoff. The groundwater model,
DRAINMOD was employed to predict the influence of various site interventions affecting
restoration of subsurface hydrology.
Existing Conditions
Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Little Sugar Creek Site is located in southeastern Mecklenburg County, approximately 600
feet (ft) (183 meters (m)) west of the Charlotte Outer Loop alignment and adjacent to NC 51.
The site consists of approximately 21 ac. (8.5 ha) of farm/pasture lands adjacent to Little
Sugar Creek.
The mitigation site occurs within the Charlotte Belt which is composed of igneous and
metamorphic rocks covered by regolith consisting of weathered in place residium and soil.
Based on the geologic map of North Carolina, bedrock at the mitigation site is metamorphic
mafic rock described as metagabbro, metadiorite, and mafic plutonic complexes (DNR 1985).
Field activities revealed that bedrock on site is overlain by 10 to 15 ft. (3-4.5 m) of overburden
consisting of a clayey soil at the surface underlain by saprolitic soils. The landscape is
characterized by low floodplain, with clay ridges, small depressions, and relic stream channels.
9
10
Elevations in the immediate area of the site range from 550 ft. 0 68 m) above mean sea level
(MSL) along upland ridges to 535 ft. (163 m) MSL along Little Sugar Creek (Figure 3).
It appears that most of the Little Sugar Creek Site is a relict floodplain system affected by
ditching, channelization, and surrounding urbanization. Remnants of the original alluvial forest
are evident along two drainageway systems in the northern half of the site.
Soils
Soils have been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA 1980,
Figure 4). The site is dominated by the Monacan Association. Soil textures range from loam
to sandy loam of moderate permeability. In an undrained condition, the seasonal high water
table varies along the topographic gradient from surface saturation to two feet below soil
surface. The soil and landform gradient suggests that natural forested communities which
existed prior to agricultural conversion included mesic oak/hickory forest and bottomland
hardwood forest.
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (USDA, 1987).
Monacan soils are non-hydric soils that can have hydric inclusions. Hydric soil boundaries on
the site were flagged in April 1995, by ESI personnel. Subsequently, NCDOT personnel
mapped hydric soil limits using GPS technology. Figure 5 depicts the hydric/nonhydric soil
boundaries identified on the site. (USDA 1980, USDA 1987).
The channelization of perennial streams on site and the construction of new roads have altered
the site's hydrologic regime. Therefore hydric conditions in upper soil horizons are limited.
In addition, artificial drainage and agricultural production most likely promoted a reduction in
organic matter content through accelerated decomposition and harvesting.
Plant Communities
A majority of the Little Sugar Creek Site is characterized by pasture/successional lands (18.8
ac/7.6 ha) which do not support distinct natural communities (Figure 6). These areas support
a variety grasses, (such as Digitaria sp., Paspa/um sp., Lo/ium sp.), clover (Tr/fo//um sp.), and
lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.) along with intermittent early successional vegetation.
Remnants of the natural alluvial forest community are found only in the northern portion of the
site. This forested community comprises approximately 2.2 ac. (0.9 ha) of the total 21 ac.
(8.5 ha) mitigation site. Characteristic species of the community are cottonwood (Populus
de/to/des), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), box elder (Acer negundo), American sycamore,
tulip poplar, and sweet gum. Several remaining cottonwoods with a diameter-breast-height
(DBH) exceeding 25 inches (64 centimeter) have been documented on the mitigation site.
11
13
y
1
N
Project Boundary
Open Waters
Hydric Soils
Figure: 5
Environmental HYDRIC SOILS
Services, Inc. NCDOT
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: July 1995
14
Cal
Existing Hydrology
Regionally, the Charlotte Belt is comprised of igneous and metamorphic rocks covered by
regolith consisting of weathered in place residium. A thin veneer of alluvium has been
deposited on stream floodplains. The regolith varies in thickness from less than one foot to
greater than 30 ft.(0.3-9.1 m). Groundwater within the regolith moves through substrate
pores from topographic high points to lower gradients following slope contours (Figures 7 and
8).
Hydrology at the mitigation site is controlled by several factors: the relatively shallow depth
of bedrock, a channelized perennial stream which bisects the southern portion of the site, and
two storm sewer drain outfalls. The channelized stream and the storm sewer outfalls receive
storm water drainage from a near by shopping center. Storm sewer outfalls discharge onto
the northern portion of the site, where water is retained in elongated depressions; water leaves
the site via infiltration and evaporation (Figure 9). Due to anthropogenic disturbances
associated with Little Sugar Creek, hydrological input from the creek is not a major factor.
Wetlands
In June 1994 NCDOT requested a jurisdictional determination of the site from the COE. Mr.
Steve Lund, COE Asheville field office, conducted the wetland survey and concluded that
jurisdictional wetlands were not present on site.
Hazardous Materials
A Hazardous Materials Review was conducted in May 1995 (Appendix 1). The purpose of this
investigation was to identify potential sources of environmental concerns or hazards which
may be present on the Little Sugar Creek tract or adjacent properties. The area of
investigation ranged from 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer (km)) for items of lower hazard concerns to
1.0 mile (1.6 km) for items of higher concern. Lower hazard concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C
small quantity generators, transporters, underground storage tanks (USTs), above-ground
storage tanks (ASTs), and other entities. Items of higher concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C
treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs). The low and high hazard concern designated
items are defined as such from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards.
The efforts performed at this site consisted of (1) a regulatory agency database review, (2)
a physical inspection of the subject site, and (3) a physical reconnaissance of adjacent
properties. The data were evaluated to ascertain whether the site and adjacent properties are
currently or have previously been subject to the use, storage, transportation, and/or disposal
of hazardous/toxic wastes and/or materials.
16
v
00
c?
n
O
z
O
c
M
z
m
M
3
D
r
TI
O
O
K
CD
0
C7
X
t? t O U)

(D (D /7
O D
0 C

CD
m
C Cl
0

z 1 70
CD TO
? v
c) O
?O
C7 m (M -G
C)
Q _
?
O O

C)
Q o c
O 2.
n
rt
t,
c ,
r
Y a

Ns
Z {
O n? ?
N N c m
p N
O
o D ? O
3 ZI
N O
U4 m .?
cp
I Sao
n
ti }

• „l.
i

? t
Regulatory data indicated no registered USTs located within the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Fourteen UST sites and five leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) have been documented
within a 0.5-mile (0.8 km) radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract. These sites are located north,
west, and south of the subject property. (The location of these sites are illustrated in Appendix
1, Figure 2.0.)
The site was inspected for visible evidence of hazardous or toxic materials, wastes, or other
potential sources of contamination. No obvious evidence of abandoned structures/equipment,
air emissions, industrial activities, waste water discharge, distressed vegetation, agricultural
wastes (pesticides/herbicides dumping), ASTs, USTs, or transformers was observed. Minor
incidents of debris were observed along the road and creek.
One soil sample was taken along a drainageway which bisects the southern third of the site
and was analyzed by EPA Method 9071 (oil and grease). The analytical results indicate this
sample contained elevated levels of oil and grease; however, these levels did not exceed the
action level as outlined by DEM. Additionally, a water sample was taken during a stormwater
event and analyzed for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and volatiles
by EPA Methods 5030, 9071, 601, and 602, respectively. Results were reported as below
detection limits for each method. (See Appendix 1 for laboratory results.) While extensive
stormwater run-off from parking areas is common in commercially developed areas, it is logical
to assume this site has the potential for impact by constituents contained in the run-off.
In summary, based on the information obtained during these reviews, it appears that a low to
moderate potential exists for identified conditions which may impose a environmental liability
on the subject properties. Additional efforts at Little Sugar Creek related to determining the
potential impact from stormwater run-off and the five (5) leaking UST incidents identified on
adjacent properties may provide further insight.
20
VI. MITIGATION PLAN
Wetland Restoration Modeling
A number of mitigation design studies have been utilized for restoration planning on the Little
Sugar Creek Site. These include hydrogeological modeling, development of available water
budgets, soil-site studies, Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) characterizations (EPA 1990),
and wetland functional evaluations.
Hydrological Modeling
A hydrogeological site assessment was conducted to determine the existing conditions and
wetland restoration potential of the subject property. A detailed report of hydrogeological
modeling (DRAINMOD) and hydrological modeling (HEC-1) procedures, including results are
included in Appendix 2. The assessment included the installation of a series of exploratory
soil borings, the conversion of the soil borings into observation wells (Figure 10), and water
level measurements over an approximately one month period. Hydraulic conductivity testing
of the saturated zone and review of existing data for the region were also performed and
incorporated into the hydrological model.
Early in the investigation the data indicated that storm water runoff would be the major
hydrological input into this system. Therefore it was determined that a surface water model
would need to be coupled to the groundwater model in order to forecast the probabilities of
achieving the wetland hydrology criteria. It was decided that HEC-1 I (COE, 1993), a flood
hydrograph model, was the most appropriate tool for addressing surface water concerns.
HEC-1 Model Description
The HEC-1 model is designed to simulate the surface runoff response of a water body from
precipitation by expressing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic
components. Each component specifies a particular characteristice through a mathematical
relationship which describes the associated physical process. The model results are analyzed
to provide hydrographs at desired locations within the drainage basin (Appendix 2).
HEC-1 Results Pre-restoration
HEC-1 simulations assumed that the drainage basins for the northern pod (Site 1) and the
southern pod (Site 2) consisted of 44.5 ac. (18.0 ha) and 82 ac. (33.2 ha), respectively. Both
sites were modeled for a 2-year and 50-year 24 hour (hr) storm event. Precipitation for a 2-
year storm event was modeled using 3.26 inches (in) (8.3 centimeter (cm)) and 3.36 in. (8.5
cm) for the respective sites. Model precipitation for the 50-year storm event was 7.3 in. (18.5
cm) for both sites. The model predicted runoff would peak at 750 minutes (12.5 hr) for the
2 and 50-year storm event at Site 1. Site 2 was predicted to peak at 780 minutes (13 hr) for
21
N
N
D
mm 5P
r p
to
OD
D
+ O ?
V,
O?

\ Z v
.9 p
C
.
00
O V O
i
m

,
`°
o
x o
m
t •
m m

rn
r ? a

= f
m
t i rr.,
..

{
( D
m ? ? U
N .,.

8
? o- NO TH
i +N
?+
n +Oi O ?
? ? ?
c p
p
. m 010

n C) m

Q m?Z
c

0 O

C (a
m

t
Z
?.

Z O 0
? -0 1 0

X- m f
F

3- v) -? r
? N
o
^
l / (D C) U 0
•O
Q -1- V O

+ m
:3 r ,
i

t °
=
m W *. N
V
W
uJ
1?) m E
F
o
?,
? ..
N s
I
m fN N v

p ? p O i°
{m}-y V

o
Q 0 W n
7
fi
m

O O
O ,?
N C
N ITI
O
o D O
Ul ?I
O
Q)
C
W
o ?
,,•,
0
0
the two model events. Runoff rates were predicted to be 64 and 163 cubic feet per second
(cfs) for the two model parameters at Site 1. Runoff for Site 2 was predicted to be 135 and
223 cfs for the selected parameters.
Outflow from Site 1 peaked at 810 minutes (13.5 hr) for both the 2 and 50-year storms, with
flow rates of 7 cfs ( 0.2 m3/S) and 54 cfs (1.5 m3/S) respectively. Outflow from Site 2 peaked
at 810 minutes, with rates of 54 cfs 0.5 m3/S) and 87 cfs (2.5 m3/S), respectively, for the
2 and 50-year storms. Storage at Site 1 peaked at 870 minutes (14.5 hr) with 5.2 acre-ft
(6414 m3) for a 2 year storm and at 810 minutes with 10.6 acre-ft (13,075 m3) for a 50 year
storm. Storage for Site 2 peaked at 810 minutes with 6.2 acre-ft (7648 m3 ) and 8.1 acre-ft
(9991 m3 ) for a 2 and 50-year storm, respectively. The summarized results of the HEC-1
simulation are presented in Appendix 2.
Based on the results of the model, runoff ceased at the same time as the rainfall (at 24 hrs),
but the model predicted that outflow from the sites would continue for another 24 hrs before
ceasing, for a total retention time of approximately 48 hours.
DRAINMOD
The groundwater modeling software selected as most appropriate for simulating shallow
subsurface conditions and groundwater behavior was DRAINMOD. This model was developed
by Dr. R.W. Skaggs of North Carolina State University (NCSU). The model was originally
developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water table control
systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD was subsequently modified
for application to wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulated the number of times
that the water table rose above a specified depth and remained there for a given duration
during the growing season. The model results can then be analyzed to determine if wetland
criteria are satisfied during the growing season, on average, more than half of the years
modeled (usually 30 years).
DRAINMOD predicts water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two
drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table
depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long
periods of climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range
of soil, crop, and climatological conditions.. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982),
Ohio (Skaggs et a/., 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et a/., 1985; Fouss et a/., 1987), Florida (Rogers,
1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva, 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et a/., 1987) indicate that
the model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates.
DRAINMOD has been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et a/. (1993).
23
Model Results Pre-restoration
Soil input parameters for DRAINMOD were calculated by the NRCS model, DMSOIL (Baumer
and Rice 1988), using soil texture data from samples collected on site. Soil hydraulic
conductivity values used in DRAINMOD simulations were determined from on-site slug test
data. Since shallow bedrock depths ranged from 7 to 10 ft. (2.1 to 3 m) depth, an
impermeable layer was set at 94.5 in. (240 cm) for the simulation. Depth of depressional
storage was selected to be 1.6 in. (4 cm). The wetland hydrology criteria used in the
simulation was saturation within 12 in. (30 cm) of the surface for 26 days (12.5 % of the
growing season, set as 21 March to 15 October). Simulation were conducted for the time
period 1950 to 1985 based on climatological records for Charlotte, North Carolina for those
years.
The DRAINMOD simulations indicated that the subject property under existing conditions
would meet wetland hydrology criteria of saturation within 30 cm (12 in) of the surface for
at least 26 days, for 18 of the 36 years simulated (Table 2).
TABLE 2
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatological Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Records used Criteria Wetland
Radius in Simulation (12.5 % of Hydrological
Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
200 m 90 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continous 18 of 36
days
200 m 120 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continous 18 of 36
days
Reference Forest Ecosystem Modeling
In order to restore or create a forested wetland for mitigation purposes, a reference community
endpoint needs to be established. According to Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST)
guidelines (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a Reference
Forest Ecosystem (RFE) in soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs are composed of relatively
undisturbed woodlands on/near the mitigation site which support soil, landform, and
24
hydrological characteristics that restoration activities are attempting to emulate. Although
selection of the RFEs is determined by soil, hydrologic, and landform parameters, there is
much variation within local forested areas that may not be represented in the sample plots.
Nearly all potential RFE sites selected for this study have been impacted in the past by
anthropogenic disturbances, and the species composition of the plots should be considered
as a minimum starting point in restoration procedures. Therefore, RFE information, when
incorporated into a community restoration plan, should be modified based on community
information obtained from other available resources. Reference forest data utilized in
restoration planning have been modified, where appropriate, to emulate steady state
community structure as described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Three RFE areas were identified to characterize the bottomland hardwood forest restoration
areas. Two plot locations are situated within the northern section of the mitigation site and
one in the floodplain of Long Creek approximately 600 ft. (183 ha) southwest of Beatties Ford
Road. These forest sites were sampled using 0.20-ac. (0.08 ha) circular plots (standard
forestry methodology). Plots were randomly established within forested areas supporting
target landform, soil, and hydrological characteristics in an effort to characterize the expected
steady-state composition of the mitigation site after restoration. Ecologists identified and
counted all species of trees (greater than 20 feet (6.1 m) in height); the diameter breast height
(DBH) of each tree was measured from which basal area coverage was calculated. Importance
values (IV) (Brower et al. 1990) were later calculated for the dominance. Composition of
shrub and ground cover strata were also recorded and plants identified to species. Sampling
efforts were concentrated within canopy layers to identify tree species to be chosen for later
restoration planting. Importance values for tree species within bottomland hardwood forest
sample plots is depicted in Table 3.
Bottomland forest canopies on Monacan soils are dominated by tulip poplar (IV = 55%), river
birch (IV = 43%), sweet gum ( IV = 42 %), and red maple (IV = 40%) (Table 3). To a
lesser extent, a mixture of American sycamore (IV = 30%), silver maple (IV = 19%), eastern
cottonwood (IV = 19%), box elder, black gum, willow oak (Quercus phe/%s), and green ash
are also found. Disturbance seems to have increased the occurrence of tulip poplar and the
maturation of several eastern cotton woods in this area.
Based on available information, other species may have occurred within the system before
long-term disturbance. However, these species were not found in RFE plots or adjacent areas.
Other potential members of the bottomland forest community include cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and American elm (Uimus americana) (Schafale
and Weakley 1990).
25
N
E
H
fn
O
M W
W N
J d
m i
HLL
N
V
a?
N
d
.v
d
a
a
O
R
U
R
E
O
N
N
O
CL
N
d
O
U-
O
O
3
M
2
c0
E
O
a?
O
m
d

0 O M M N N to m O M O
.. R - * - * r '• Lo - M
c.
E

m
m
o
t0
CN
CY)
00
OD
d
N
r-
00
N
~
II
O O O ?- N O O O
U
d
t0 M M O r ^ M n
cy)
r, o

> o

N

C?

06

w

O N

N

O

CO
.?
II
O w
U

'
O O O O O O o O I 1

a? a 4

w
?d

d r
O
M
r
r-
O
O
O
^
^
M
M
M
M
r?
7 M 0 0 q 0 0 M
C O
v.
LL w
c ?•

o ?.
h
E
N
D N M •- N N M M N N ?
i a
G

0

M O N 11
C O O D O 0 0

114
O N
d '3C

t0

r n

N Lo O

N

M

r
O
E
'C II
w
=
Z5

U

L C
t
cyi j O z m a
o
O C to
O V
N
\

A
c a
\ y
C co C t a CO
V
Q
G?i N v? O co 4 ~
D >.,
Z O O
Q Q Q O J J
26
Wetland Restoration Methodology
Hydrological Restoration
The Little Sugar Creek floodplain has been influenced by numerous anthropogenic activities
within the recent past. These activities have reduced or eliminated hydrological and
biochemical functions of the floodplain. Restoration of these floodplain functions will be
provided by: hydrological inputs in the form of storm water flow from a nearby shopping mall;
and grading a major portion of the mitigation site. Recontouring/grading the site will remove
spoil piles and establish several small pools to capture and mitigate storm water flow. Water
flow will be directed through the site via a series of inter-connecting swales. As the swales
reach capacity, water will discharge onto adjacent terraces, thereby uniformly saturating or
inundating these areas (Figure 11). In addition, three water control structures (Figure 12) will
be employed to increase and control hydroperiod.
The site has been segmented into two pods based on perennial stream location, storm sewer
outfalls from a nearby shopping mall, and deed restrictions. The northern pod is approximately
12 ac. (4.9 ha) in size. Proposed for this pod is one entry pool, one entry/exit pool, one exit
pool, and two water control structures. Typical relief within the pod from normal surface
water elevation to top of terrace will be 1.5 ft. (0.45 m). The southern pod, approximately
3.0 ac. (1.2 ha) will consist of a small entre pool and exit pool with a water control structure.
Typical relief within this pod from normal surface water elevation will be 2.0 ft. (0.6 m). Pools
within each pod are interconnected via shallow swales. Swale depth ranges from 1.0 ft (0.3
m) in the northern pod to 2.0 ft. (0.6 m) in the southern pod.
The installation of pools, swales, and terraces will restore typical topography relief found in
piedmont bottomland communities and provide suitable structural support for community
diversity. In addition, stormwater runoff quality will improve due to increase resident time
(Chan et a/. 1982) which allows for increased plant uptake of minerals (Guntenspergen et a/.
1989).
DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration
DRAINMOD simulations of the subject property followed alteration by grading and redirecting
the surface drainage to maximize retention time on site. The simulations forecast the
achievement of wetland hydrology criteria within approximately 16 ac. for 34 out of 36 years
(Table 4). The model forecast that ground water was present within 12 in. (30 cm) of the
surface for as much as 209 consecutive days. Based upon these simulations it is reasonable
to expect that the site will meet the wetland hydrology criteria following alteration. Additional
depressional storage can be achieved by scarifying the soils when planting specimens. Plant
specimens should spaced at intervals to allow access by a tractor. Tractor access will allow
27
546
544 .........
542
540
538
536
534
532 ......... .............. ................................................................. ....
530 ......... .....................................................................................
North Carolina TYPICAL CONTROL STRUCTURE Project: ER94018.5 Figure: 12
Department of Little Sugar Creek Drawn By: JM Scale: As Shown
Mecklenburg County, NC
Transportation NCDOT R211 DA
Checked By: BLH Date: July 1995

mowing of the area to prevent over-topping by pioneer vegetation and to scarify the soils
between the beds during the first two years of restoration, if necessary.
TABLE 4
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatologic Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Radius al Records Criteria Wetland
used in (12.5 % of Hydrological
Simulation Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
200 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1985 26 34 of 36
continous
days
200 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1986 26 35 of 37
continous
days
Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forested communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types developed through a landscape approach to
community restoration contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other
wildlife.
RFE data and on-site observations, coupled with experience in forest ecosystem classification
and a review of the available literature, were used to develop the primary plant community
associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. These community
associations include: 1) bottomland forest; 2) shrub scrub wetland; and 3) emergent wetland.
A summary of community restoration components is provided.
30
Restoration of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands (9.8 ac/4.0 ha) is designed to re-establish
the major component species which facilitate development of the community. The bottomland
forest community is targeted to support indicator species such as river birch, eastern
cottonwood, swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, green ash, and tulip poplar. Opportunistic
species which typically dominate disturbed swamp forests have been excluded from initial
community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species include loblolly pine (Pious taeda), sweet
gum, and red maple. In addition, American sycamore has been excluded due to perceived low
ecosystem value indicated by various natural resource personnel. Efforts to inhibit early site
domination by opportunistic species may be required during the first several years of tree
growth to encourage diversity. However, these species should also be considered important
components of steady-state bottomland hardwood forest communities where species diversity
has not been jeopardized.
In order for NCDOT to obtain this site, they had to agree to establish a shrub/small tree
(<_ 13 ft/4m) community within the southern section (approx. 4 ac/1.6 ha) of the site. This
is due to a proposed hotel which is to be built adjacent to the southern end of the site. It was
felt that re-establishment of a forest community would obscure the view of the proposed
hotel.
Creation of the palustrine scrub-shrub wetland (3.2 ac/1.3 ha) is designed to add functional
lift to the mitigation site through the establishment of key species found within this community
type. Target community structure for scrub-shrub wetland is composed of alder (Alnus
serru/ata), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and
spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Intermittent stems of equal importance species such as dog-
hobble (Leucothoe axil/aris), smooth azalea (Rhododendron arborescens), and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis) are being facilitated. Possum-haw (Virburnum nudum) and painted
buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica) will also be encouraged in the target scrub-shrub community.
Water quality is expected to be improved through the planting of palustrine emergent
community (3.1 ac/1.2 ha) (Hammer 1989). In addition, the establishment of a marsh
community system along swales and within retention pools will provide rare ecotonal
assemblages of forest/marsh and shrub/marsh not found within the region. Major species
which will be used to form the structure of the community include sweet flag (Acorus
ca/umus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), duck potato
(Sagittaria latifolia), bulrush (Scirpus validus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). Infrequent plantings
of cow-lily (Nuphar luteum) within open water areas will be encouraged in the target
community.
31
The following planting plan serves as the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated
results stated in the Success Criteria are expected to reflect potential vegetative conditions
which may be achieved after steady-state conditions prevail over time.
Planting Plan
A planting plan is proposed for the mitigation areas to reestablish wetland community patterns
across the landscape (Figure 13). The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland
species; 2) implementation of proposed surface topography improvements; and 3) planting of
selected species on site. The COE bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA
1993) were utilized in developing this plan.
The species selected for planting will be dependent upon the availability of local seedling
sources at the time of planting. Target planting densities and total stems needed by species
are depicted in Table 5.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest'
A. Overstory
1. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxiil
2. Cherrybark Oak (Q. pagoda)
3. Willow Oak (Q. phe/%s)
4. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5. Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
6. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
8. Carolina Ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
9. River Birch (Betula nigra)
B. Understory and Groundcover
Groundcover and understory elements are expected through natural recruitment
from adjacent bottomland forest areas and stream banks.
'Certain characteristic canopy trees such as sweet gum (Liquidambar styracifiua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) have not been incorporated into this plan because these species are expected through natural recruitment.
32
W
W
s
y?
CD
0 C7
m Q
0
s= { -?
c? tD CD -°
n?OD
CD?
4-
0
Z 0
0 CD D
-3 X-?Z
:' Cn
C7 CD
0
O 0
. :3
3
Q
o ? ° 0
0 o
0
?
A
fi
m
`G Z
O 0
0
'^

O
70
C rri

N
N m

o rn
I N
?
o D 0

v un

n
Q)
W
0
O O O O00000O °O°° O °

0.9090,009; O 0 0 0 0 0
r' ° ° °
O O O O O O O O O O0o 0 0 0 0 o
00° 0 0°00000000000000 0 0 0
'O O O O O
000 O O 00000 ° 00000
O O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 909090909.00000 °°°°o°O°O°O°O°O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
00°O°O°000°
00 0000000000000°o90900
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O°° 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_O 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0
Oo°0°oOO°O°o0o O0°o
0°o°o°o°O°o°o°o°0°
O O°°°° 000000000
°o°?OD O°°00°000 00000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oo°o°o°o°o°o°
o°o°o°o°o°0°o°o°0
o°ijoggogogogggg °°°°0
0 00°000
0
0 0 0°0°0°0°o°
0
0 0 0°000 000 0 0 0 0 0
oo °o °o°o°o°o°o°o°o
__ vo_0_0_020
0 00°00000°0
000 0 000°0
0 0 0 0 0
° ° O O0O0O ° °
°°°0°000000°°°°°°°
0000°000°0000°0°0°0
0°0°0°00°0°0°o00000ooo°0o
0000000000
000000000000000000
o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°
o°o°o°o°o°o°0°0°0°
0°0°0°o°o°o°o°o°o°
o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°
o°o°o°o°o°0
°o°o°
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000° 00
° ° - °0°0°0°0° o°o
0 °
0 0,01 00 o"tW?l?G"o` 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00o0 00 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 90g. 999 0 0 0 0 0 000000°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O000
0 0
00°00O000
0
00000
00"0000000000 00O00O00000O 00000000000000000000
O O O O O
0000° °0°0°0°0°00°0°0°0°0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 °? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0°0°0°0°? °o° ° o°o°o°o°o
000o0o0e0000000
0o_00o_000 0° o°° o
o __o_
o _o_o_
o-o0
000 0
o °
o°0 0
°o° o
0
00o °
0000 °O
0 0 °
°0°0 °
0000 °
O O O
00°
°0ooo°°
00°000°00
° o 0
0000
0000°00
00000
o0o0o0o
?gggggg
0 0 0
000000
0000000
000000`
o°o
0°
0
0o
7 0
0
i
t>
0
o0o00o0000000
g00 0000°000000o0000
00ODODo0O0
0°0°O°O°O°O°O0
C
0
000.0000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0000
000000°000°0° o00
0000000000000 000
0000000 000 0000 000
° o ° 0 0 °
o°°°o 0000
°°°°oo°° 0°0
O°O°O°O°O°0° 0°O
O°O°O°0°0°0° 0°0
000o°o00°o° o°o
00000000000 000
000000000000 00
000000000000 00
00000000000 00
000oooooO0o0 0o
000000000000 00
000000000000 °O
020°0°0° O°0
0°°
°°°°°°
°o °o°o°o
o ooooo
000 °
o°o"o
o ° o°°°o°o°o
O°O°O°O°O°0°000
o° o°0°0°0°0°0°0
°°°°o°o°o°o
0000°000°0
00°0000000 0000
0000000
O00000 00 °o?oooo
0 0 0 00 x' 0
00000 00°000000°
0°0°0°0°0°
000000 0
O°
I
I
W

0
0

-* ?-Jm
0 0 00
-0 -0
D D D O

C C
/)
c /)
c U) O

Z Z Z D
m `?
m m z
o °
0
Z
O
(f)
O
r
0
D
r?
0
00
O
O
D
m
m
C7
70
U)
2
c
N
03
W
N
m
m
V J
m
z
D
t!)
2
W
m
M
co
W
D
C7
m
rrl
N
D
C7
m
m
t)
C7
m
m
O°°°O°O°O°°
00000°O°O°O
20200-0-02o
00000°O°0°0
o°O° O°O°O°
0°0000 0
°°
°
600000°O
0°O°o°O°
0°0°O°°°
000°O°
000°
O°O°
o°
0
NO TH
W
Z
O
Q
H
C
Y
W
W
V
Lfl ?
W Q
J
m
FQ- W
J
F-
J
W
m
CD
W
Z
P
Z
Q
J
a
N N
ui Q
m to to <n to In u? m to
_
'- -
_ -
co co o
CD CD CD ?

LU It d d ereter??st
\
\
`
\ NNNNNNN
N
N
c N
Lo O
O
CL n n t
n t
f
n f
n O cO tO CD cD co cO CO cD N N N N N In
.
N N
O m CO co co co O
c - -
N N N N N N N N N
LO In U)
N
N N
LD LO LO
N N N
O tp o CO w w CD cD CO o o .-

V
N
t d
U
y i (a
O
y
O - - r- .- - - - -

____ N
N
....

NNN co

00
4 4- tD m 00 co co to
c O

CO (D (D

CF) co (0 co
(O
'o rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn (3)
Cnrn(n
ao
4`
:tt O

-ru C to to tD Ln to m Ln m m
d d ?t?d d ? ? ^ U) 00 ? L 00

y 4

0 ca

n
I? I? n r- r, r- r,
NN -
?N0

l
F- a
.?
C O
N
LL
t0

O
O co
^
3a;
m

I
p .- •- •-

r
v ` N N N N

N

N

CY) co
OD 00 00 In
c 0
cc "o
00000wo(om co co
(nrn co co c0
rntorn

4t `

y
W ?
N
W
CL ?e
0 0
=
y 0
°
a
0 , c
i

Y 3
C C
m
-O N > 2 y

(7 `
O
y O Y O
C
N U N O
d
?
y
J
W cn L
U
f1 U N C a U 3 N
b Cn U
i L m cm
m y? +
0 +
" f
's
C F'
U
0 cu (a
.D Q
>3: a. )
L
0
7 L
0
0 (D
LL

cr U
m o
U r- CL
O O. +m+ (U CU O N a0+ > U O `y -
ai C . +
y + 'O t' U ` +m,
: W
C 7 ccm6 (D E f6
2 o f 'd O .ffi
7 Y D ? O O (D
3: 7 7 m F"
.
CnU?I-LuC7QUaC .
Qmcncnofnwtla CnC uxwomU N
U
Z
O
a7
.Y
.C
?
CE
E
O
U
m
m
z
w
O
C
O
Y
U
N
m
U
0
c
N
C_
O
co
u
Cl)
L
0
0
`o
LL
75
75 r-
0
mm
> a)
m
O
fa
cc
1° c
CL
L 0
F- E
o 0
Y N
C O
0 a?
N ?
7 •O
a0
C
U 0
a) C
N ?
d 0
c
Co t+
a) 0
E
m n,
c 0.
0 C
a)
U
Q) Y
U)
c 2
C
O G
E Q)
E .0
O O
U F-

34
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
A. Understory
1. Alder (Alnus serrulata)
2. Button Bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
3. Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
4. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
5. Dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris)
6. Smooth Azalea (Rhododendron arborescens)
7. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
8. Possum-haw (Virburnum nudum)
9. Painted Buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica)
B. Groundcover
Groundcover elements are expected through natural recruitment from adjacent
bottomland forest areas and stream banks.
Palustrine Emergent
A. Herbaceous
1. Sweet Flag (Acorus calumus)
2. Soft Rush (Juncus effusus)
3. Cow-Lily (Nuphar luteum)
4. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum)
5. Duck Potato (Sagittaria latifolia)
6. Bulrush (Scirpus validus)
7. Cattail (Typha latifolia)
Planting Program
Bare root seedlings of tree species will be planted on 8-foot (2.4 m) centers (680 trees/acre)
for bottomland forest, bare root or 1 gallon container of shrubs species will be planted on 5-
foot (1.5 m) centers (1,742 stems/acre), and tuber/rhizome of herbaceous species were
applicable will be planted on 3-foot(1.0 m) centers (10,890 stems/acre) within the specified
map areas. In restoration areas, species at the relative densities indicated in Table 5 will be
alternated within adjacent centers whenever feasible. Planting will be performed between
35
December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring season. Removal or control of competing nuisance vegetation will be
implemented as necessary to ensure adequate survival of target wetland and upland plants.
Wetland Soil Restoration
Land use practices have impacted soil characteristics on the mitigation site. Impacts include
the minimization of hydric conditions in upper soil horizons, the reduction in organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition, the placement of spoil ridges along the site, and
the elimination of surface microtopography by agricultural activities. The creation of shallow
pools and swales as proposed during hydrological restoration should serve to reintroduce
hydric soil conditions and halt the reductions in organic matter content. Further soil
remediation tasks include removal of spoil ridges and reestablishment of surface
microtopography.
Reference wetlands within relatively undisturbed portions of the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, and hummocks
associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the
system. Large woody debris and partially decomposed litter provide additional complexity
across the wetland soil surface. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface
roughness will be implemented on the mitigation site. Activities will be promoted which will
facilitate the formation of hummocks and concavities in order to increase surface storage and
provide micro-habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Scarification of surface soils
between planted trees will further promote surface microtopography on the mitigation site.
A natural levee will be recontoured to approximately 3 ft (0.90 m) tall and will serve as a
"service road" for the mitigation site. Within the levee, water control structures will be
employed to reproduce the functions of a natural levee by delaying the recession of
stormwater runoff back into the creek, thus extending the period of water storage and
deposition of sediments within the floodplain.
36
VII. MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, vegetation and
hydrology. Wetland soils currently exist within restoration areas and monitoring is not
considered necessary to verify hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
Hydrology Monitoring
While hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers',
Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August
1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth 24 inches below the soil surface.
Approximately 9 surficial monitoring wells (6 in the northern pod and 3 in the southern pod)
should be imbedded within vegetation sampling plots to provide representative coverage within
each of the two wetland ecosystem types. (Monitoring well placement will be made after
consultation with COE personnel.) Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the
growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each
community restoration area (EPA 1990).
Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 % of the
growing season during average climatic conditions. These areas are expected to support
hydrophytic vegetation within organic soils of low permeability. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and hydrology monitoring, consultation with COE
personnel will be undertaken to determine jurisdictional extent in these transitional areas.
Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
37
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and September 31
after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, 0.05 acre plots will be
randomly placed within the restored bottomland forest ecosystem. Sample plot distributions
will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on
hydrological and vegetation parameters. In each 0.05-acre sample plot, vegetation parameters
to be monitored include average tree height, species composition, density, and basal area.
Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be
recorded.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community components necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional
success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre must be surviving
for at least 3 years after initial planting. Characteristic tree species are those elements
enumerated in the planting plan along with natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, and
loblolly pine. Loblolly pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10% of the 320
stem/acre requirement. In addition, at least five other character tree species must be present,
and no species can comprise more than 20% of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental
plantings will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part
of the vegetation success criteria. Development of a bottomland forest canopy over several
decades and restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and
establishment of desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be
reported for information purposes.
Report Submittal
An "as built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by community
type, and sample plot locations, will be provided after completion of planting. A discussion
of the planting design, including what species were planted, the species densities and numbers
planted will also be included. The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of
planting.
38
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies following
each assessment. Submitted reports will document the sample transect locations, along with
photographs which illustrate site conditions.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will also be calculated within each community restoration map unit.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, character tree
mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will be
calculated. A visual estimate and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of
understory and groundcover species will be generated.
Contingency
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended
monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum
species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies
in the event that wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
39
VIII. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
Mitigation planning has been oriented towards replacing wetland functions diminished or lost
due to the Charlotte Outer Loop (R-211 DA). Wetland restoration and enhancement strategies
have been designed to exceed those functions believed to be present (and eventually lost)
within the intended road widening corridor.
A subjective wetland functional evaluation was undertaken on the mitigation site and impact
areas to evaluate functional replacement needs. The study involved visual evaluations of
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland functions outlined in various research and project literature
(Brinson 1994, ESI 1994a, ESI 1994b). Specific wetland functions evaluated are presented
in Table 6. This assessment has been expanded in an effort to categorize functions into three
primary areas: a) hydrodynamics; b) biogeochemical processes; and c) maintenance of biotic
resources. Proposed mitigation seeks both spatial and functional replacement for impacted
wetland resources.
An objective HGM functional assessment was not performed to ordinate, through multivariate
analysis, the range of wetland functions that occur within subject wetland classes. Reference
wetland data sets were not quantitatively sampled to determine "maximum sustainable
performance" for characteristic wetland functions. In addition, the site indicators of functional
performance were not quantitatively identified. In this study, reference wetland systems were
evaluated in the field by ecologists to discern the features present within relatively undisturbed
(reference) wetlands. Subsequently, impacted wetlands and mitigation activities were
subjectively compared to reference conditions as an indicator of differences in existing or
projected wetland functions. Projected performance of wetland functions on the mitigation
site was inferred from conditions expected 20 years after mitigation activities are completed.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (FIFE) areas within the floodplains of Mecklenburg County were
utilized as an indicator of maximum sustainable performance for characteristic wetland
functions. Target functions have been identified based on the type of wetland to be impacted
(bottomland, seasonally flooded wetlands (PF01 C)).
Bottomiand, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C) are the type of impacted wetlands type in
the Charlotte Outer Loop corridor (8.6 acres/3.5 ha; Section III, Table 1). Because bottomland
systems are typically situated immediately adjacent to area streams, these wetlands have the
potential to provide significant hydrodynamic, biochemical, and community maintenance
functions. PFO1 C wetlands have the potential to attenuate floodflow, provide for long-term
surface/subsurface water storage, moderate riparian groundwater discharge, and retain
sediments or other elements. Habitat diversity and resulting species diversity is generally
higher in bottomland wetlands. In the impact area, bottomland functions may have been
40
y
W
N
N
J
V
0
z
J
H
W
0
W
LU V
J CdC
Q G
F- -
z
N
z
O
H
U
z
LL
0
W
F-
V
W
CL
X
W
2 t
U)
N
Cl) cu

ui

rn
m
c

0 _
>
0 0 0 ?

c
c
rn
cc
0 a _ -
o N
o +1 E >, +J
° -00 N
- Q. 0 C
f0 O co
7
- a
N
L
E
?. E y
? to
>
-Q L
a 0 0 1-
fl. a) c0 >.
L
0 O co c o
cn E a (a a E
+J
co + L- O o 0i LO E
,0 co
n
O
E
a) O
L
ui

c 0

*' L
0 L
CD o

A 4-- >

'
U
L
O w m 4--
+
--
E +r
O c
O ++ m (D
7 U O
c +•
0 cn E a) a)
y co ( -0 N 0 -0
y
+
U to
> a C • 5 E c (
0 + a)
(c0 rn U
fa O 0 V O
D] `? L
O O N O +1 O
o
c
O C
L
4- O O "O C
CD C
U 0 L O
'
L 4- E ? _
a

?
co
+O+
O
t0
a)
3O'
c
O
(M
U
Q
C13 O
rn 3 rn c U

C (1)
:3 -0
cc U

O } O (a E' c

6 CD O) 0 O U O
c
E 5 a) m a) U C CD -a
to +1
co w
c ++
cc a-
ca + c0
cm +1
m 0 c
Q L
+J C O +>. O
O
CD 0
N y a) 0 N CD U C
CD
0
O
E +
1 v- 1
O O O cn O 0 Q- E O
"0 -a O U a) a c 0-6
c c
c
co
-0
O
U
+ + + a a? m °- 0 0 aci uj -0 c c
a) CD CD 0 (n 4) m
m co a a? °- 0
c
v (n
0 -6 (D
0
0 0 o 0 L- `° o w
0 C
0
co
> - 0
3 .a
a cn
L
-0 )
c a) c
C
:t
O Co
-0 },
= c
O
c
07

?

?o 0 U)

c to
c0 co co O a) CO L ?
0 ? U O .? O
E
C +1 ca
CL CL
O
CL
ca +-
Co
CL
tm
0
U
L
N
a
c0 0
N
U m
U (
U O >
Q co
U O -
Q i- CL W T3
°1
°' 3
W
c, L. O
R 0 LL
0 d N
? d
d a3 C +, i V
+
+ !
O
c N 0 0 x s
V ++ +' E N L LU

CL
0 C m a c o c
O
N N N
H _ j, 00
o 0 m U E
E

d U o v a
E
o V R E
o

•?

N co

Qi c

.d c
O
V "

C
•c V
+%
,
c O 0 0 ? +0+ C
O? O +
.? R
D J W fA 2 z tr m oc 0 d
A 9
W
N
N
J
U
0
Z
J
W
d
W
C ~
V
"
.. a
(O
W
m Z
Q Cl)
I- Z
O_
F-
V
Z
LL
Li
W
H
U
W
M
X
W
U
C
c0
0)
O
O
O
O
io
y
O
Q
y
C
O
C
O
co
O
E
7
U
U
O
C
O
U
O
Q
O
y
O
y
y
a?
U
O
Q.
O
L
a-+
O
N
U
C
m
C
+O+ CD
C
co c6
2 E
O
a?
U
C
O
C
(D
C
(0
C
N
y
y
U
U
cp
E
V7
C
c0
L
O
U
cu
7
f0 ?
L E
?O y
C
(A CU
N 2)
C O
C _
f6 f0
U N
- a?
co L
L L
a) O
t ?
C_ -O
O O
L O
O 'D
C O
CD L
m >
O
L U
N 4-
C_ O
y- tp
O N
N
O c`a
U N
C C
O O
C 7
+O+ O)
C ++
?p C
U
rn
C
N
m
L
C
C13
f0
•L
N
C
N
7
to
N
co
O
O
>
C_
O
C
O
Cl)

c0
c0 ?j
Q -0
y N
co U)
co
'y L
C -0
O e
? 42)
?,/ L
4- O
O >
? .5
U -?
C O
Co O
N 4-
C N
G
C
O
U
7
O
C.
O
L
C
co
.F.i
m
.fl
c0
.C
E
N
O
.C
to
O
E
m
c
O
a?
O
U
O
C.
d
O
y
U)
!A V U
E N O A O
O > ?' d L y
c0 O
V d i 'a R 'C
i C
O t0 C ? _

d
N
V V V
? +' o?S Oa Oa
U }' 41 co y d ca
N C
O
• () C a0+ V O U)
d
L
N
= i c0 G i
'++
O O O
c0 *'
t+ R
O L
U G, d
d d
i
!0 ++
m L
d = ? G1 C +?+ '?''
.
i
V (A c Q C G
It
M
U)
M
rn
rn
c
O
y
c
m
1*
42
compromised by channelization (which has reduced frequency, depth, and extent of over bank
flooding) and through encroachment from agriculture/urbanization. However, these wetlands
continue to represent a valuable resource for the region. Functional replacement is considered
paramount.
Mitigation provides for restoration and enhancement of a contiguous wetland area situated
immediately adjacent to the Little Sugar Creek. The entire wetland site will function as a
stream-side management zone (SMZ) with resultant benefits to the creek system. Restoration
of hydrodynamic and biogeochemical processes in creek systems should result in
improvements to water quality inputs into the stream. In addition, the presence of restored
natural communities will provide wildlife habitat of greater area-wide function than the
collective sum of crossings of impacted PFO1 C systems in the Charlotte Outer Loop corridor.
Based on the proposed mitigation strategy, hydrogeological modeling results, subjective
wetland functional evaluations, and current research, this mitigation project is expected to
meet and exceed mitigation needs associated with the new multi-lane Charlotte Outer Loop.
43
IX. DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT will maintain control of the mitigation area until all success criteria have been met (3-5
years from plan implementation). It is anticipated that within five to ten years from plan
implementation Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation will seek to incorporate the site into
the county's "green-way" system. Stipulations will be incorporated into the deed upon
transfer to insure that the property remains as conservation land in perpetuity.
44
X. REFERENCES
Baumer, 0. and J. Rice. 1988. Methods to predict soil input data for DRAINMOD ASAE
Paper No. 88-2564. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Belcher, H. W. and G. E. Merva, 1987, Results of DRAINMOD verification study for
Zeigenfuss, soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Brinson, M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, R.P. Novitzki, W.L. Nutter, and D.F. Whingham. 1994.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands.
The National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative. Seattle, WA.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and
status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81 /17
Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C. N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Brown, Philip M., et al, 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-.500,000 scale.
Butler, J.R. and D.T. Secor. 1991. "The Eastern Piedmont in North Carolina." in The Geology
of the Carolinas, J. Wright Horton, Jr., and Victor A. Zullo, eds. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville TN.
Chan, E., T. A. Bursztynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.J. Litwin. 1982. "The Use of Wetlands for
Water Pollution Controll." EPA-600/S2-82-086. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Cooper, H. H., Jr., J. D. Bredehoft, and I. S. Papadopoulos. 1967. Response of a finite-
diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research, 3, pp
263-269.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of Interior.
45
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993. Corps of Engineers (COE). WRP Technical Note
HY-IA-3.1 August 1993, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
1993. Corps of Engineers (COE). HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph
Package User's Manual, Hydrological Engineer Center, Davis, California
. 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNR). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. NC Geological Survey.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST).
A methodology to classify pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance
standards for construction and restoration of forested wetlands. EPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994a; unpublished. Determination of applicable
mitigation credit For restoration of wetland buffers and wetland/upland ecotones: US
64 wetland restoration and conservation management plan, US 64 relocation, Martin
and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. Provided to the N.C. Department of
Transportation.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994b; unpublished. Mitigation Plan: Northeast Florida
Wetland Mitigation Bank. Technical Report for St. Johns River Water Management
District, Palatka, Fla.
Fouss, J. L., R. L. Bengtson and C. E. Carter, 1987, Simulating subsurface drainage in the
lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6)-. 1679 -
1688.
Gayle, G., R. W. Skaggs and C. E. Carter, 1985, Evaluation of a water management model for
a Louisiana sugar cane field. J. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4: 18 - 28.
46
Guntsnspergen, G.R., F. Stearns, and J.A. Kadlec. 1989. "Wetland Vegetation". in
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. D.A. Hammer. ed. Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Hammer, D.A. and R.K. Bastin. 1989. "Wetlands Ecosystems: Natural Water Purifiers"? in
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. D.A. Hammer, ed. Lewis Publishers,
Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Hvorslev, M. J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS.
Jones, S.M. 1989. Application of Landscape Ecosystem Classification in Identifying
Productive Potential of Pine-Hardwood Stands. (in) Pine-Hardwood Mixtures: a
Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. Waldrop, T.E. (ed).
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests
of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2): 137-144, Special
Issue, June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
McCrain, G.R. 1992. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) applied to mitigation banking in
North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Management. 35:153-162.
. 1994 Mitigation Ratios in the Southeast. Paper presented at the Annual
Symposium. Society of Wetland Scientists, May 31-June 3, 1994. Portland Oregon.
Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the EPA and the
DOE Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC.
Peet, R.K. and N.L. Christensen. 1980. Hardwood Forest Vegetation of the North Carolina
Piedmont. Veroff. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rubel, Zurich 69. Heft (1980), 14-39.
Rogers, J. S., 1985, Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28 (3): 785-790.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC.
47
Skaggs, R. W., 1980, A water management model for artificially drained soils. Tech. Bull.
No. 267, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State University, Raleigh.
54 pp.
Skaggs, R. W., 1982, Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey and B. H. Nolte, 1981, Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam and R. 0. Evans, 1991, A computer simulation study of pocosin
hydrology. Wetlands (1 1): 399 - 416.
Skaggs, R.W., et a[, 1993, Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Susanto, R. H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx and G. Wyseure, 1987, The use of simulation models
to evaluate the performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proc. of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State Univ., pp. A67 - A76.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Interior (USDI). 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. Fish and wildlife
Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC. 102 ESM.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Habitat Evaluation Procedures Workbook.
National Ecology Research Center.
48
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REVIEW
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
TIP No.: R-2123
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 Dale Street, Suite 220
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MAY 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. ii
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .............................. 1
II. PUBLIC RECORDS EVALUATION ................................... 3
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management .................... 3
Groundwater Section ...................................... 3
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Registrations and
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Registrations ....... 3
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management ..................... 3
Superfund Section ........................................ 3
National Priorities List (NPL) ............................ 6
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLIS) ............... 6
Hazardous Waste Site Inventory (SPI) ..................... 6
Responsible Party Voluntary Remedial Action Sites (VRA) ........ 6
Sites Priority List (SPL) ................................ 6
Hazardous Waste Section ................................... 6
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) .. 6
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) ............. 7
Solid Waste Section ....................................... 7
Solid Waste Facilities ................................. 7
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management ...................... 7
Emergency Management Spills (EMS) ........................... 7
III. SITE INSPECTION ............................................10
IV. AREA RECONNAISSANCE ......................................11
V. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................12
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................13
VII. REFERENCES ................................................14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map ........................................... 2
Figure 2 - UST/LUST Locations ......................................... 4
Figure 3 - Hazardous Waste Generator Locations ............................. 8
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REVIEW
CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
1. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
A Hazardous Materials Review was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) under the
direction of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), for the Charlotte Outer
Loop Mitigation Plan, Little Sugar Creek Site, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to identify potential sources of
environmental concerns or hazards which may be present on the Little Sugar Creek tract or
adjacent properties. The area of investigation established for the search area ranged from 0.5
mile for items of lower hazard concerns to 1.0 mile for items of higher concern. Lower hazard
concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C small quantity generators, transporters, underground storage
tanks (USTs), above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), and other entities, while items of higher
concerns include RCRA Subtitle-C treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs). The low and
high hazard concern designated items are defined as such from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.
The efforts performed at this site consisted of (1) a regulatory agency database review, (2)
a physical inspection of the subject site, and (3) a physical reconnaissance of adjacent
properties. ESI evaluated the data to ascertain whether the site and adjacent properties are
currently or have previously been subject to the use, storage, transportation, and/or disposal
of hazardous/toxic wastes and/or materials. Appendix 1.0 presents photographs which were
taken during the site reconnaissance to document current field conditions.
This report is organized into three primary sections as referenced above. The first section,
(public records evaluation), presents a summary of findings from the regulatory agency
database review. The second section, (site inspection), presents a summary of the findings
of the visual inspection of the subject site. The third section, (vicinity reconnaissance),
includes potential environmental concerns and hazards identified on properties located adjacent
to and within the respective search radii of the subject site.
1
\!C r
' r $ 1 QED BREVSTER VII •ttk 1 2 s'Oark .ERG.{TE
ty Busin_ es i •\ i USE`4q7,
\ yG. ` r?ER? E '- -'---`? • rta,0 v? V CRES SIDAN S•?DRANtinI 3`E _E ?4
TER D •T? ? ?`?• '? BEM FOR ESQ {}P S
6? FR<Jy QG ! .? L.'_ OR o 9 ire 4 kQO J
r) GH4101US
13 <r 13
4
'` ?--- 't •?s? ,? r ?a T?'?9-f V$PQ LONG yLLY
f? ` y I,i\y?dr? i AILEENR,o `O4LOA mef P
?f = L`??a
_ . 4
sAmo ??? ?V 1 " O `RNCEECTfgC, Lp
1118'' O rkChA
rUcNBERRY' NeJgpa' 4"
WA Ire" HILL C! V
O,yC77
5 y QE S 4µ5i E?C 00M Z I,
04717 Np? tom. z
\ I PAC t\s enr o v f q "1 i im'p
- `` 'O N J CA osp, 9i Rl FL,P x Fla p oa2'c WK4 S
\ 1$ V `? r N T Cr4 `, °a E ?a "O ENRSgg` o
iRA(.1 f 0
0
SOU"t71l.AN 1)? ?I ,?? ?p o? . a V t- }1 C' T f 4 ,k w
INDUSTRIAL Jt I + ! ?+" j+r rf ?r ;? " q4 cT ?y
?lti - tP •rq o f Wyh ox L,y1 u .` rY(4t, Vie
'=o PARE{ 1 ..l .1 2 \4- 4v ?i + a (ir}?e
,\ (?Q? V i Pmecdle f s al I ?fr .,. •??-(AA s Gt /.:.??. (1 ` N
\ . JryO l rti ` ElJnle ?- YL VNQ 1??N<?.. C^a \"''(' 4, pA?
'. r?• - f1s•T p,. / wi . Ik?If.n I :f ,_ rrirAe? .- L?.V/? 1 rt !4
(Cf'I[': ?? r?9614G}: ?` y _ INA SJ?f
C t i Y?C//tr\,n\ a
Par 6o:
Yr 'C 4S5 W`6eOAR LA t>.
kt 1 ?W f
'•? N _``? ,' /? ? ? .4n i' ?' 7 MUM HAMPTON OR i 0t'?r? Jr 5 c? ?• ?k y r Park PARR SPRINGS cr 511 '}? ?q' yTf CeJar C.IMNEY CORNER CT
I II 613V,\f/ BLL`.InCS l- klter? ti??;•.
41 ?A,+YRrF? . 'tT
51 ?PINEVILLE- N
S Sr I 1t1l. ?
eegT
1 f,,°" v i^, It dicai Pnrk Park
T, xAM
7 ri t p - c 0/ Pvk.k;c ??F wcr - t ic lull
T
o .,hop Ctr acef:ourtry%lcCreek
i OQ f / / : _ t ! tt .a Shoo 1hSerket _?/
It v ATT
rPO c. ?i 31 ?rI ?F R y?cROW VILLE-M
q - r?4 LLEGE \t •l '' «? tiearT rC £ I:"i Ii l
r Wf/ r/ i 4 V?? r sr' ?. A 1 ,Q 9 y' n??Cfy Caot!?k I.F r. \ R i 4b Y\ tN
rE Pt ? 9 \gs ? ?.r?*n cpRv
Tr ;n went 1, F' V r r •. \ R
a PC ?j o f ?fd$r c`?
'•`\\ ti lant PinpviflP 9 'Il \IFi'
-
1 to a
/ Town Hal?a4r C
t/e i rrryyyy' f_amlinx a
8 ' 7 'Sv Q`'S C . Cf r ;'
,t?'. \ ? 1?11 ?,aHt.wJi! L R q `?? ?%
KA!
\ 1 s? z 122 < N? l I +;' tt,a H„t q \ o? r
r ?ns r nl i )'Ii1CC `r ?' t7ai? P ?fi? ".t
t j f a,cA -•1 ° Y` 1. .+P r.. !
:, g
? ?x 4 711 ' 1 6 j`"'b i? + u: Fictiet
SE1 1 \? '.r?•7• n , 1''w-`wn_v s .,--'thy ?_/ T I bfail I t ; er 5° Otst Ct )cE`?, .
I/ y r n s y oP p
z PC. j? /j!s_rlCenpi /o-?t ?-4 i_.11f .?II_
.. ?\ O Tom. (?C {?? lj/ _ ,? •?( C.i x-11 Y 4 Cn arln9{IMV ?/
+il \ 1/2 mile 'Polk
y gd'ghr / fi n. JAMES)*` J I:(.•mo;IA: Sta1P? Y Q ,\^ r4. E 1?c
o oR K c'` rlianncal Site ?F ?•.?. -?4Or? s<t
R
.? y`iY F V [ \ PhP?`JDrr?F ?:J \(1 - /dPrTil_vf ;
t GR,-i- ,1 -... tt_Efkc ?t?-'c) ?` r ? r. 1`?•?.' Oaiw-r ., ?
N , \ nn '•.1\ ! J 4rQ ?ej a ,,.°anre 4 o1Y w, 4(?
"c; 1 Ct ? d,
?99'Q 1 mile r. edn.,mind.rl._
w < hL riU ?? lPn
IN b• J'4 C
?y O I )' !I<. .. Yf4MrPlJ 1. rt,?°3 ~?•n d^dr
IIV
•?? i -- \.??''?1.. - ..T;ti ',a Lt/.--1Y f'6AIwt
'.tc,ilplne 'reek
\ r i, r Z
Study Area tv r ?
NEW 1f I0 1/2 1MILE \ i ,c•? ??,?
THE t.. j
Source: Doff Map Comparry. 1995 -
L; 521
a
.. C; ..F J \ y£A`??V4t 7=4 ?:GiifQyE
fs ?.-.f I :.VILOIR1S 4'In -A ' :,.'.r41+
Figure: 1 l
Environmental Site Location Map
Services, Inc. NCDOT
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: g March 95 ,f a
7
11. PUBLIC RECORDS EVALUATION
A review of applicable regulatory agency databases was conducted by ESI. The limitations
of this evaluation include available data, file access, currently available state lists (which may
not have been updated in recent weeks), and other such constraining factors. This database
evaluation identifies facilities which are known environmental concerns on or adjacent to the
subject site.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Registrations
The Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) maintains a list
for registry of USTs and leaking UST sites throughout North Carolina. ESI investigated data
pertaining to these items as necessary to evaluate whether any registered USTs or leaking
USTs were documented on the subject site, or adjacent properties. The DEM's UST registry
does not guarantee that all existing UST appear on the list. Leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) incidents can vary in severity from a minor residual release to extensive groundwater
contamination.
No registered USTs were located within the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Fifteen sites were located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract which
have registered USTs. One site is just outside the 0.5-mile radius. The location of
these sites are illustrated on Figure 2.
Five LUST incident listings were located within 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek
tract. These sites are located north, west, and south of the subject property. The
location of these sites are illustrated on Figure 2.
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management
Superfund Section
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) through the Division
of Solid Waste Management (DSWM), is required by North Carolina General Statute 130A-
310.1 (a) to maintain an inventory of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Sites.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory accounts for all of the sites in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) inventory of potentially contaminated sites
(CERCLIS) with the intent of addressing those sites not determined to be federal priorities.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory is organized into categories as described below.
3
/C = ttti T Susineu' ark '• ;' \N DVsr
`?..\ ER3 (_. \ Cif
so v T Dcf ??3 ESS ?DJ 4 En
t
r SE
ST) GHO
?G •s? ' AILEEN'
It Ip ? C' Y ? ?; fA ? ?l
Amon (a ?? iJQ !¢
1 9 N iu
?4 I / Rq RA
J
I4
z 1 1
\ r / ' SOIJ't'H Lr N
\ . ?. /4 INDUSTRIAL
2 PARK
Q,
??=k1
'PINEVILLE-
BREUSTER OR -EN t ?? 2 ?? RMTr
G CRESSIDAy ?'? ?. c,+ r . ct ARAN O t
.. I , I . C cL`,. 7EM 4/A LSD {}P S
QG ? F' L -:. D R Fc 9 c ? ,? tkpo J
'rJQ LOT1 ??. CLLY gp n$? Qb .. ?? Q?, `KIRC,CE?CO
.01
-_ NANOVE - J/ 4
II ?, FiDGE CT E, ; , fl INCN
A
77
521 { C7 f -- - rUc zErlnY `?6J¢•pQ. Rd?q WiTCN NILE CT ri
icAO ?,+ Z ,
117 c y 1:='a 1S o°?: a u
c o r
tt\{ BAL,,? .O >f D 4NOv ?'^ i < 4`a? 4
?. , f tin O R'9NEN ? n 9C?Hp
?0 '/ fr'E'PF" 4„fit` ?Z Y'}( i ' Z C
N y 4 t. 3
tiOf µv, ?-?f y. rF y O O
p f ji
h 9 a`?'EE,NSg
?l; ?= iRACFr` r]
\ Il! c Di"}() L-{Stir, 17
nl? -qt' I-?NI ri 2 ptl( SI\N MI 'F
pP `R ??Ti .Lr -t PON
YPEp,
I I m1c I ?• rL CHwI? ?..>'4f.1 s1 '` r/24'
j., I?-, ?.n :/ i rAEAS" _ \E}W
+! ttrtrr: A Cyr?v61N01: a SJr•
Z f? R ¢4 11M nil i r 'QJ
/'? YI?< Per Rrr, C(ITr ,
485 a^>'`,£ , S} 1 SVIEF- CE AI LA O
MOf/ HAMPTON 09 PARK SPPINOS CT
rq CNIMNEr COCLNEJI cr
/s! r ?1'. ?7 rcv `?T Ce?tr - 'Erf W
I l l L /' 1 N$RCi S ?1J r Pnb t lt'. I t s .l Y, BLL`.,,ICR DR ?` .
- ------ E rr{ Q v POSED1 r11, lcal Park 'Perk £RTHA?C 3 4ed
?1 $. r s - - ¦ I Yark. de FiFwrr 4 fi-Mull
?.ho?C,r Yla_e urrryv:IeCteek f
,1 " OQ. 'a a? E? r fVt _¢I `Shoo !,Lla r ke t,?/
rk V .? C , Cu
qJ ¦ _f ?J vl q eO VILLE-MATT
J ?v? yi ? :.s YzrO ?c'*Ow
C. -r T? ya'JI hF+. C? r .I 1 I
\., q a' r wa c ¦"?i w \A•.? ?yy ?? l.o w?, (?;yCas
Ali
o
K _
? ? ?' Ian: Pinf<vi! ?'? o 7 \ Y°rr`E ,,t\?yr,Rr-J ?? f 1,?Rd? cEt+
\\ \ /"'? ':''/ Town f-t81 t.a???t> a d '1'„' ,y1, f_an,?inx q<p i\ /C° ii al x`.?D Cf'?^C C
`C ( ,6i•L dr ?.P<? I' \y+
J.
"'?°"7 rr1 r 'I'- ?1 ?'r ??,li }`IaCC i t 4 ?.? IB\?0 }4n` •L7y?.??P ?fSpi r.h
Ede 5 .\9? rt' J x 1,; >(I r - i- ?, J°?o. t
5F- ... 1 / " ?. f f.?r JY
+ KAY S i' M n1
I I ?. Pas\' ? )co __ C t?la?l Oh?-?` J?7 " ?, =- I
it ? , dr S 1 ( Ct [ i t
--
\? 1 m /tip ¦ R? `^? T'W .,( 'dn '.. L^(
0 11 C c. Sr fCPm `rli ?I
•7?
1/2 mile < '` ^ d1 Ci.<?. r? rr ?.? ?_' G ringfren=` `??\-A
,
Polk
?, n?NAr k + ME9i}? Iplnenal S:atE Ni?Q v` ^ R'rC? ?I2-'x
ii,!Aoncal Site \\ i P ? 1? \t , \Y ? ?o?Ij"?R n rn:n1 ? ? ?i•J o %? ? ':1 Pyr ?: co a
Jy??y? l./ ?('14 acv --?`1 s(? ^ HdtcCt
7 J,
1 He j vlrM r r
O 1V/,'r*"J r td r r o 73
I I. f,.l, .. / INY EA MT CI - 1 1,CT ?.^dC
C n L
f
44
Q9
1 r 4 `?
UisposalPlnnt ? ? tr,•?p??,???
Study Area 9 _ - ? \ { ?.?r??? ?_ .?I
NEW H 0 1/2 1 MILE
THE
Source: Dolf Map Cornpany, 19%
1 'I
521
i
-9 tA
! ???n crtN J.IIOIR,S i.T'.v: ..A T? ,'.tCN
Environmental UST/LUST Locations Figure: p I
i
Services, Inc. NCDOT 31
t
1318 Dale Street Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation Project: ER94018.5 LJ' -fir
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek Site
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: 9 March 95
KEY TO FIGURE 2
REGISTERED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
AND LUST INCIDENTS
WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE OF LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
NUMBER ON MAP POTENTIAL CONCERNS
1. Catoe's Exxon Eight USTs
Intersection of Hwy51 /Polk Rd.
2. Pineville AMOCO Three USTs
101 N. Polk
3. Auto Bell Car Wash One UST
201 S. Polk
4. Minit-Lube Four USTs
207 N Polk LUST incident
5. Goodyear Tire One UST
327 S. Polk
6. Cedar Springs Hospital One UST
Pineville-Matthews Rd
7. James K. Polk Memorial One UST
Hwy 521 South
8. Kmart Five USTs
Pineville-Matthews Rd.
9. Handy Pantry Unknown # of USTs
Intersection of Polk Rd./Hwy 51
10.Carolina Concrete Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
117 Cadillac St. LUST incident
1 1.Shops on the Main Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
Hwy 51 (Main St.) LUST incident
12. BP Oil #24210 Four USTs
8925 Pineville-Matthews Rd.
13.Tillet Chemical Co. Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
316 College St. LUST incident
14.Fire Station AST,
College/Church St. Existence of USTs unknown
15.Seven-Eleven Unknown # of USTs, possibly removed,
8912 Pineville St. LUST incident
National Priorities List (NPL)
The NPL consists of sites the federal government has determined to be some of the highest
priority and, potentially uncontrolled hazardous sites in the nation. ESl investigated data
pertaining to these items and identified one site, Southeastern Pollution Control
(EPA#NCD000773663), located in the Pineville area. ESI was not able to contact the
company in order to determine whether Southeastern Pollution Control is located within 1.0-
mile radius of the subject property.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLIS)
CERCLIS is a United States Environmental Protection Agency list of potential hazardous
substance disposal sites. ESI reviewed the CERCLIS database and found no sites listed for
the subject site or within a 0.5-mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Hazardous Waste Site Inventory (SPI)
This is an inventory of sites listed in the Inactive Hazardous Sites maintained by the Superfund
Section of the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management. No sites were listed for
the subject site or within a 0.5 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Responsible Party Voluntary Remedial Action Sites (VRA)
In accordance with North Carolina General Statute 130A-310.9(b), voluntary cleanups or
"remedial actions" conducted by responsible parties with agency approval under the Inactive
Hazardous Sites law must be listed within the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory. No sites
were identified for the subject site or within a 1.0 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Sites Priority List (SPL)
The SPL includes sites with confirmed contamination or known disposal of hazardous
substances which have been ranked using the Prioritization System rules (NCAC Title 15A
Subchapter 13C.0200). Based on the results of our investigation, no sites were identified for
the subject site or within a 1.0 mile radius of the Little Sugar Creek tract.
Hazardous Waste Section
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)
ESI investigated the RCRIS database which identifies facilities which generate, transport, treat,
store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. As a result, 14 facilities were identified within
1.0-mile radius of the subject site. See Figure 3 for the location of each site. All of these
sites are classified as either small quantity generators, or conditionally exempt small quantity
generators.
6
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
The EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a repository of information on
releases of oil and hazardous substances. Releases are recorded in ERNS when they are
initially reported to the federal government by any party. Based on the results of this
investigation, over 60 emergency response reports have been filed for the Pineville area. The
research necessary to determine the exact location of these spills is beyond the scope of this
project.
Solid Waste Section
Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities are regulated by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section (SWS). These
facilities include permitted sanitary landfills,, closed sanitary landfills, permitted (or closed)
demolition (C&D) waste landfills, old unpermitted (closed) dump sites, inert waste landfills,
transfer stations, storage facilities, and other related facilities. Based upon the results of this
investigation, no facilities were identified within the Little Sugar Creek tractor within a 0.5-
mile radius of the tract.
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Management Spills (EMS)
ESI evaluated Emergency Management Spill (EMS) data which is obtained from a listing
maintained by the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety (NCDCCPS).
As part of the data base search, a list of EMS spill reports were reviewed and several listings
were identified within Mecklenburg county, many of which did not disclose specific locations.
Due to the presence of commercial and industrial development, it is possible that some spills
may have occurred within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site. Such spills maybe considered
detrimental to the quality of storm water run-off.
7

?Sp _ - - Business Park
T 1 d BREUS

TER OR .,L ' 1 2 Rd/T
E
+ ER?iDOF RO ..._ 1?\ rA ?SapGN?? U aESQ CR1:S S1Dll, t+7 ?•(y?? ?.7 C •i _T SPPN J
04)., `ER
; . I i.
i aY jEN ?Y Rp S
G
c
STI 0141 SE 8 .?O Rtlp R ? !:i DR n o G _! a i ; e°rJ _
L -
?b l---
?... ?+r.`? ?-A r -??;,?r•1y,G?
AI LO
NQ LOLLY 4 e89 a C'7
LE
?
EN
4fT
0 ?T
Amon ?t \2 `P4DCE GTf9C
A
RRYr
Q
,4A
p
J
-
pq W4YCN NI
I-
9 51i l J ( Z,
•Y = 1+e O t nti CL Cr
4
U?117 J = ??nSR ENtStE0.`Ppt ?•t =,Qy
'Y
'
?
Ot,
i L! C' V
' I I PA Et\4 ` BAL,? O sf v q 2 0,
x? S'
7 r
1
•-
C A
t
P'9
N
_? `?/-•\}
\? hO
3 ?• P•ia `1
r''I Ct
? <CT O tX Y
II???@
E```y p
l \
O C
PF. 7I.r?F .n 2 N50 ? Z ` ? 2
?
` 10. Q

\\ Z
E
1
'
? b
10 r ?_?? P'? \' "PK
OE? ? i Lr19S 'TlnpO H _ cy tb
.,y
Cr
'
O , l \ ?
J
£
\? gg
gg
4
?
yn = 7RACfr'Q
? ??T
?L1 ? r k
I N I
U P D '.? a w
SDU'I'llLA p; .{(erg { ,; $ic c ?55 JC
1 t 3 1 O s war a 7 :, +? M 41I
l
o-J
N `
yF
ir
°
rr,e
Q
L

cT
?,r
I
?S
t
l
w yr Q
/ i
\ INDUSTRIA
%p
?
ti o? ?4 J Ox '>
t
,
, ,?a
r L roN
1 .. P 7 +. _ fit( ` I -, ?,k?l H.Th l?i UUEfw- a r YL4L VIE* Rij Ptnerltle'I S, `°(r I z?
,La : LC" ! y i\>.
q
• , Honlr:
T
Cry Ik?lgn I .r< r7+rASO Y v /Q•
I ?
4
r
i -li: i;!! ._
5or
/f m c
\7 QiQ 1y " _ [cn!cT: bslNDl:'
- 9
.fr \ p. I Y1<o Per •r r
?,?1 ' ?..•``
SF j
rr.
W
E
P-
/
4
9.
i?J ?_
af y
7
E
CEOAR LA v
= iL UJ
85
NS 4 ., a 1n
Pafk Vc 2 MUIJ 11AMPTON DR 0t-
/j `? PARK SMI%GS CT
J?C'f 1 R ^ T /! (
/
?
(
A-
`t/ Cetlal CNI f7 CORNEA Cr
"-' t ` ,c R
l/ j
a•
1 ! n
J
y
S
K01
'
(
I
HI PINEVIILLE- ,? N$r41t q +. tI scv Bu.lnes /`ow'
e 5,• rl• • ?? ,???''•.
"Pafk
'
. E4g?. •?LL??
T11c CAI Park
: `• { O Parksicle fi,. ,r. -- - 4
ltir",IUII
( w7j ? 7 3 - h Cv ? a:eCo w.tr) i{cGFeek *
11 OQ e y e ?, f .t'.%t:Y7l ?tieo!Merket?
Op LIT • C,r
-MATT
E
q t oil ac
YI LIir
A"? lYIY /S LL 1 . . ^? ?^.y y?? 4,f1T Crr_ !:'I 11 '.I
sr
S `A+ e 7%rq Y\'L\ y??'•y C'-a,?r!?;. ?. ;I _QT ? •
f1 - \ .t YE R r ?
1'flh
1y
Tr aUnrne i `
7 Lc
`

/ t
1 f
r
_
.
?y
lam PI;iPI'i11P
ORV
,',t A'F \\4 R \ 'F CEn
'?(,??i
Town ftR1L.a le
.t W s h r_an,?ina
.° t' ?,+ar?
-,,•?' n•l C`rP `\??' Y'.' ilcr•t. .IL q?:?. 1y6 Hn,di •i.- `T
\?`-''l 1

SI3
?P P
`Y.i4aQYr 1^t1) m ..1, T4l Placc
r ? 1 L!I+
6?0
/ 4 \
': Pickett
nr OKT7Y S
+°
har S?t
T L r
?`?
.... J \
p
! tfail 1
1 ?
f tK
!?
1
!13
?D"S" sY+nc'r on 7 Ct7c'?
\! Cem ???Q71 T
??
?:T
ai i.t!1
M1
C J
2r4
I
, !inq( f,?`
-
1
It
1/2
l
•?? •
+
t at
?
`
3
mi
e POIk
/ no roar -Y rya, + arAEel* Z NIclTtor!ai State
`? z ??3
?p
c
?^t,
Jo`
`
r? ?tT
E
E DP
Iligonca! Site ? T t n
,?
r\~f,t C
fp ? t ;•t ? q?fi,riir[ri rG,?+L
? r
Sr \i °t ??? \

n
^
.
?
(lilt, ti
_7C I

N \ ?1 t `O2?i" J NFEkS Alt, -??n?.? I
?`' l r !rn \ rrPn.? v4;/^ ?j ±.lnllowc
?A'S?,p 1 mile ea 11:'i c ` M.' ?'w c
O ',1 !A-,I.. INYFR MT Pt -, f ? r•Igni ? ?.
I
CM/
"R It
.41
? ??

9, _ I ,
ON-
h]cAlpme tree
k~
rrn
71 ?P Nspo.ml Plant ` fir ,p=fig "

Study Area \ \?`
NEW Fi
0
1 /2 1 MILE
THE
\• Source: Dolf Map company, 1995
511
?.? O.
c
??? ? ? . H>?i ? to ! 0
O
t
t 1 S
S'L 574
4Y..
??rS !SI!• `r: IOIPtS l=lla v, 74i rNF ,r(?

Environmental
Hazardous Waste Generators Figure: 3
Services, Inc.
1318 Dale Street
Suite 220 NCDOT
Charlotte Outer Loop Mitigation
Little Sugar Creek Site
Project: ER94018.5
'
Raleigh, NC 27605 Mecklenburg County, NC
Date: g March 95
I;
KEY TO FIGURE 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE OF LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
NUMBER ON MAP GENERATOR CLASSIFICATION
1. Hearts One Hour Martinizing Conditionally Exempt
9101 Pineville-Matthews Rd.
2. Praxair Inc. Conditionally Exempt
9628 Industrial Dr.
3. Diesel Power Injection Small Quantity
313 N. Polk St.
4. Industrial Engine & Equipment Conditionally Exempt
311 n. Polk
5. Brady's Tire Country, Inc. Conditionally Exempt
316 N. Polk St.
6. B-Kleen Conditionally Exempt
308 N. Polk St.
7. Catoe's Exxon Service Conditionally Exempt
100 S. Polk St.
8. Rutland Plastics Technologies Conditionally Exempt
10021 Rodney St.
9. Connex Pipe System Inc. Conditionally Exempt
9800 Industrial Drive
10. Minit-Lube #1250 Small Quantity
207 N. Polk St.
11. Exxon Small Quantity
108 Polk Street
12. Alpha Chemical & Plastic Corp. Small Quantity
9635 Industrial Dr.
13. Charlotte Mecklenburg Creek WWTP Small Quantity
Hwy 521
14. EC Manufacturing Conditionally Exempt
413 N. Polk St.
III. SITE INSPECTION
The subject property consists of a partially wooded and partially cleared, yet overgrown tract
which lies along the eastern banks of Little Sugar Creek. The subject property is bordered to
the south by Highway 51, to the east by commercial access road, to the north and west by
commercial properties. ESI personnel inspected the site and its boundaries on March 8 and
9, 1995, for visible evidence of hazardous or toxic materials, wastes, or other potential
sources of contamination. ESI personnel did not observe obvious evidence of abandoned
structures/equipment, air emissions, industrial activities, waste water discharge, distressed
vegetation, agricultural wastes (pesticides/herbicides dumping), ASTs, USTs, or transformers.
Minor incidents of debris observed along the road and creek.
In addition to the three monitoring wells installed by ESI, several peizometers previously
installed on the site were observed during the site reconnaissance (see Appendix 1, Photos
5 & 6). ESI personnel evaluated stained soils and oil sheens adjacent to culverts that divert
stormwater from adjacent properties to the east and south, across the subject property to
Little Sugar Creek (see Appendix 1, Photos 2-4).
One soil sample was taken at a point documented in Photo #3 and analyzed by EPA Method
9071 (oil and grease). The analytical results indicate that this sample contained elevated
levels of oil and grease; however, these levels did not exceed the action level as outlined by
DEM. Additionally, a water sample was taken during a stormwater event and analyzed for the
presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and volatiles by EPA Methods 5030,
9071, 601, and 602, respectively. Results were reported as below detection limits for each
method.. See Appendix 2 for laboratory results. While extensive stormwater run-off from
parking areas is common in commercially developed areas, it is logical to assume that this site
has the potential for impact by constituents contained in the run-off.
10
IV. AREA RECONNAISSANCE
The area reconnaissance was limited to accessible state and county roads in the vicinity of the
site. Properties located within the search area consist predominantly of industrial and
commercially developed properties with the exception of some residential properties located
to the east and south of the subject property. Generally, the presence of underground storage
tanks (USTs) raises concern for potential spills and/or releases from usage (or neglect) over
time. Potential contaminant sources might include active and/or abandoned gasoline stations,
active and/or abandoned commercial entities, small businesses (such as automobile body
shops, paint shops, furniture manufacturing facilities, service stations), and other similar
entities which could potentially impact (or become impacted from) the site. A list was
prepared of facilities within the vicinity which included commercial or industrial properties
which may be potential sources of contamination. This list includes 13 automotive repair/gas
stations, nine manufacturing facilities, 13 commercial entities, and two hospitals. The list is
provided in Appendix 2. The list does not include features identified on maps and aerial
photographs which could not be field checked due to limitations and constraints associated
with access restrictions on private property. Search efforts could be expanded if access to
private property is obtained.
11
V. CONCLUSIONS
Potential environmental concerns within the Little Sugar Creek Site and its' respective vicinity
appear to be limited to potential impacts from any of the following: fourteen (14) registered
underground storage tank (UST) sites, fourteen (14) hazardous waste generators, and an
unknown number of emergency management spills. More significant environmental concerns
include five (5) leaking UST incidents and the storm water run-off from adjacent properties
that has potentially impacted the subject property. One NPL site is listed with a Pineville,
North Carolina address only. Additional research is required to determine whether the NPL site
it is located within a 1.0 mile radius of the subject property.
Other than the concerns indicated above, reconnaissance of surrounding properties within the
respective search radii of the site revealed no evidence of sources of pollution/contamination
which could adversely affect mitigation efforts.
12
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information obtained during this review, it appears that a low to moderate
potential exists for identified conditions which may impose a significant environmental liability
on the subject property. Additional efforts related to determining the potential impact from
stormwater run-off and leaking UST incidents identified on adjacent properties may provide
further insight.
13
VII. REFERENCES
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fort Mill Quadrangle, North Carolina/South Carolina, 7.5'
Topographic Map, 1980.
Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembly, Inactive Hazardous Site Program,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, February 1994.
"Groundwater Section Guidelines For The Investigation and Remediation of Soil and
Groundwater." North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section, March 1993.
14
PHOTOGRAPHS
PROJECT TITLE: Little Sugar Creek JOB NUMBER: ER94-018.5
LOCATION: Pineville, N.C. DATE: March 7, 1995
Photo 5: The installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
Photo 6: Previously installed groundwater monitoring wells.
PHOTOGRAPHS
PROJECT TITLE: Little Sugar Creek JOB NUMBER: ER94-018.5
LOCATION: Pineville, N.C. DATE: March 7, 1995
Photo 3: Stained soil and oil sheens at the base of the aforementioned culvert.
Photo 4: Another example of stained soil and oil sheens.
PHOTOGRAPHS
PROJECT TITLE: Little Sugar Creek JOB NUMBER: ER94-018.5
LOCATION: Pineville, N.C. DATE: March 7, 1995
Photo 1 : A view of the northern portion of the subject property.
Photo 2: Culverts that divert stormwater from adjacent parking lots.
',PR-20-1335 1 7 ' 33 - YDR3_3 I .,- I3RR 13 ) I
313 39a 3717 °.31/D
H Y D R 4 L U G s C? I N C
March 20, 1995
?ydre?T,ogic-Morris. , Inc.
2500 Gateway Centre
Suite #900
M=isviUe, NC 27560
Attention: PamarW smith
PRfJ7B= NIPMQt: FL9%716
LIWM CQKPIWM.& March 20, 1995
DWE ] PIM: March 13, 1995
PRC!?T3?T 1'I?:
IMICIM..
Hydrdliogic-Morris-, Inc.
2500 Gatewe?y C e rt e
suite #900
14arrievilIA3, NC : 27560
sus, Ina./Little s creek # 964018. --a water sample a allyzed for 9071/5030/601/602.
Enclosed is the laboratcuy report for the project descrik:d abm-e. if you
have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please feell free
to caantact Jamie Fore. We appreciate your business and l root forward
to serving yat3 agal.n soon.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Carl Esterle
Laboratrsry Dixeatcr
rAx TRANSNXTTAL
INDROLCMCI M? No. Pages
TO. xpt:
?- os.s S
From;
NYrL-
1491 Twilight Tra+i 0 Frankfort, KY 40601 0 502/223-0251 0 FAX 502187= -3016 13 Toll F-ee 1-800172$-2251
1 R-= -13g? 1 39 i7'G?G?G_?I 1GRRISO I-LE
313 333 3717 °.32•'77
H Y D R o L o G I C I N C
C'tft M NAM: f4drdT4gic---Harris., Inc.
CWPM PFCO CT NUMM: SEA, nC./I1= SUGAR CRM%, #ER964018.5
HYDRO=C PFDJ= NO : FW54716
HYL>R=IC SNOIR NG>TlBm: 954716
HYDRd>:OGIC IM Z . D. #: 399
SAHM ZDENI'MCATICN: -1
IlA'rE SAMPLED: 3/8/95
DAM EXTPA=I : NIA
DATE/= ANAUZED: 3/15/95
NF.•1'lW EPA 601
ANALYSIS CAS NO. Siff, RES'EXitl'
t ug/l i t ug/1)
RrcmxU=hl.orawthane 75-27-4 1.0 Bm
Brwofo m 75-25-2 1.0 Bm
Srcumethane 74-83-9 1.0 Em
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 1.0 BDL
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.0 am
Ghloroethane 75-00-3 110 BIL
2-<2xIoro Ethyl vii Etnar 110-75-8 1.0 BDL
Chloroform 67-66-3 1.0 Em
Chlohane 74-87-3 1.0 A11ii.
Dibranochlorcraethane 124-48-1 1.0 Ilm
1,2-D chlc=banzene 95-50-1 1.0 PIDS,
1,3--Dijc:!a=dbe=ene 541-73-1 1.0 EM
1,4-DichlorObenzem 106-46-7 1.0 BDL
DichlofJ=rcmvthane 75-43-4 110 BDL
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 1.0 BD1.
1,2-Dichlorvetharae 107-06-2 1.0 BCC
1.,1-DiCUOZOtChene 75-35-4 110 BDL
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 1.0 Bm
1, 2-DkI_aQr prOpane 78-87-5 1.0 BM
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 1.0 BDL
trans-i,3-Dichloroprq eme 10061-02-6 1.0 Bm
mthrylene Ck*.bxi& 75-09-2 1.0 EEL
1,1,2,2- etrachlaroethane 79-34-5 1.0 BDL
Tetrachlareethen2 127-18-4 1-0 BEL
1, 1, I-atichlaroethane 71-55-6 1.0 W
1491 Twilight Troia 0 Frankfort, KY 40601 0 502/223-0251 1 FAX 502JV -8016 0 Toil Free 1-800/728-2251
IAR-23-1995 17:40 iY'DRO?J I '•IORRI3'.I 919 393 9717 a.'aJ/a7
H Y D R 0 L 0 G ! C_ I N C
Page z continued
crwmy NAND: > oLcgic-Mlarris. , Inc.
CCeANY P;tOJ= NUlems SEA, 3C./IrMU SUGAR CREZ" #M64018.5
HYM1OU*1C PRDJJECT NUMM: EU54716
HYMtOLOGIC SAHM NUMBER: 954716
SAV13IZ IDWMCA=CH*. SWO--1
MM SAME' m; 3/8/95
MLTI= EPA 601
ANALYSIS
1, 1, 2-.richlaroethane
Trichloroethenne
Triahl
viral Chloride
cis-1, 2-DicUoroethylem
Surrogate Recovery
BFS
BM = Belay Swple Debction Limit
SM - Sanple Deteclw m Limit
CONGA'S:
CAS NO. sm
U9/1) u9ji)
79-00-5 1.0 Ba
79-01-6 1.0 EM
75-69-4 1.0 ML
75-01-4 1.0 BM
541--59-4 1.0 ML
105%
1491 Twilight Trail ? Frankfort, KY 40601 0 502/223-02510 FAX 502/07•!-8016 0 Toll Free 1-800!728-2251
1t R-23-1995 17:43 -1YGR0 L75I "'IOR? 13,) I ?-_3
319 533 3717 =1.34/37
H. Y D R 0 L 0 G I C I N C
CCWANY NAME:
CCWANY PRa7El'T NOMM:
HYCRCUGIC PFDJECT N WER:
SYI7RDI=C SX61E =14m:
HYDRCff=C LAB I.D. #:
S?AM IDErVMCATIC N-.
DATB SAMPLED:
DAUB $7M?AC1rD:
DATE/= ANALYZED:
HydroLogic-Morris., Inc.
SEA, INC./LITTLE SUGAR ( #BR964018.5
FW54716
954716
399
srnlC?1
38/95
N/A
3/15/95
1 EPA 602
ANALYSIS CAS 1?0. 5M
( us/l1 t ug/1)
Henan 71-43-2 1.o BM
Chlor+oberizene 108-90-7 1.0 BM
1,2-Dicchl.orabenzene 95-50-1 1.0 BM
1, 3-Dichlorobmzene 541-73-1 1.0 Blx
1,4-Dichiorcbennzene 106-46-7 1.0 BM
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylem (Total)
Surrogate Recovery:
IE
BLL = Below Sanple Detection Limit
SDL - Sale Detection: Limit
100-41-4 1.0 BDL
108-A8-3 1.0 BEL
1330-20-7 1.0 SDI,
94%
1491 Twilight T'roil 0 Frankfort, KY 40601 12 b021223.0251 0 FAX 502/87;-W 6 0 Toil Free 1-800/728-2251
'PP-2=D-1995 17:41
?YDRO_3a i C-P10RR I ?U I ?_?
919 333 9717 =.35%37
H Y D R 0 L 0 G I C I N C
C M M M.6 Hydr aLogic-M=is., rw.
CMTM Flom= NUMM.O SF.A, INC./LI'='1't,E SI7CAR COW: #M64018.5
HYMRaE=C; PROJECT NC is FL954716
HY>J i(=IC SAMPLE NM M: 954716
AIC LAB I.D. #: 399
SAMM IMTZIFICATICN: S4O-1
GATE SAMUEA: /88/95
DATE 'BXTR?C:`.i?D: N
DM/TINE ANALYZED: 3/14/95
METIM TBH 5030
Y5z5 S AFStIrLT
AM -
C ug/1) u!/1)
Moline 1000 ML
FML = aelaw SMple Detection Limit
SDL = Swuple Detact inn. Limit
1491 Twilight Trail 0 Frankfort, ICY 406010 5021223»0251 0 FAX 502/87;-8016 0 Tell Free 1.800/728.2251
MAR-23-1995 17:41 HYDRO _Ja I :?-M7RR I =r.J I 919 320 9717 ?.06/37
N Y d R 0 L 0 G 1 C ? ?, I N C
CQbPAW OM-P wdra cgic-?brriss. , Ism.
CC %VANY PROJb'C1' NtM8SR: SEA, nc. /i r?= SuQR C E . #M64018.5
HmROr=C PROJL+C.'T N[A4R:
HYDRK=IC SAMPLE NUMBER:
HYDRtaAGIC LAB I . D. #:
SAMW 'ICATICIN:
DATE SAMPLED:
DATE TIME
AML-nis AMLYSED
FL954726
954716B
399
SP*-1
3/8/95
M917M 'UNITS SIB, I?JLT
Oil and Crease 3/20/95 TPH 9071 mg/kg 10 95.5
BOL = Selaw Sample Datecticn Limit
SDL = Sample Detection Limit
CCKOM., SAMPLE ANALYZED OUP OF PRdIO= PER C LIM
1491 Twilight Trail D Frankfort, KY 40601 0 502/223-02510 FAX [phone] C) Tall Free 1-800/728-2251
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Job No.: ER94-018.5
Prepared for:
N.C. Department of Transportation
1 South Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 Dale St., Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
July, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................. iii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................1
2. INTRODUCTION ...............................................3
Background .............................................3
Scope of Work ..........................................3
3. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES .............................. 6
Exploratory Soil Borings and Observation Well Installation ............. 6
Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ............................... 6
Water Level Measurements .................................. 8
Surveying ..............................................8
4. GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .................................10
Regional Geology ........................................ 10
Local Geology ..........................................10
Regional Hydrogeology .................................... 11
Local Hydrogeology ...................................... 11
5. MODELING AND RESULTS ...................................... 17
Groundwater Model ...................................... 17
HEC-1 Description ....................................... 17
DRAINMOD Results Pre-restoration ........................... 18
HEC-1 Results .......................................... 18
DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration .......................... 20
6. RECOMMENDED SITE ALTERATIONS TO PROMOTE
WETLAND HYDROLOGY .................. 22
Recommendations for Site Grading ............................ 22
7. REFERENCES CITED ...........................................23
APPENDICES
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Site Location Map ........................................ 4
Figure 2. Monitoring Wells ......................................... 7
Figure 3. Groundwater Flow Map for March 22, 1995 ..................... 12
Figure 4. Groundwater Flow Map for March 30, 1995 ..................... 13
Figure 5. Groundwater Flow Map for April 5, 1995 ....................... 14
Figure 6. Surface Hydrology ....................................... 15
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Groundwater Measurements and Water Table
Elevations Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site ...................... 9
Table 2. Soil Input Parameters ..................................... 19
Table 3. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina .......................... 21
Table 4. Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions, Little Sugar Creek,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina .......................... 21
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
FOR
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK MITIGATION SITE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Services Inc. (ESI), was contracted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Planning and Environmental Branch to conduct a hydrogeological site
assessment of a 8.5 hectare (ha) (21 acre) tract of land owned by NCDOT and located in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The hydrogeological assessment was conducted to
determine the existing conditions on-site and to evaluate proposed alterations to the site to
enhance the potential for wetland hydrology. This assessment was conducted as part of a
comprehensive Compensatory Mitigation Plan for the Charlotte Outer Loop.
ESI conducted the hydrogeological assessment as part of the development of a comprehensive
mitigation plan. In order to characterize existing site conditions, ESI installed exploratory soil
borings and a series of three shallow observation wells to obtain data on site stratigraphy and
current depths to groundwater. Field activities performed to obtain the necessary data
included collecting soil samples from the soil borings, conducting hydraulic conductivity tests
on the three wells to determine aquifer characteristics, and measuring of water levels over
a four week period. This data was subsequently used to construct groundwater flow maps
to determine flow directions and hydraulic gradients on the site.
The field data was also used to develop input parameters for two computer enhanced models;
DRAINMOD, a model developed for simulating the effect of drainage systems on soils with a
shallow water table; and HEC-1, a model developed for simulating stream flooding and other
hydrologic characteristics. DRAINMOD can also be used to forecast the occurrence of
wetland hydrologic characteristics in shallow soils. HEC-1 models the response of drainage
basins and streams to rainfall events and provides forecasts of the expected change in stream
elevations and duration of the changes before the return to baseflow conditions. Input
parameters were calibrated against existing data, and a series of simulations were run to
predict the occurrence and duration of saturation in the top 12 in (30 cm) of soil under various
conditions, with the target duration of 12.5 percent of the growing season (26 continuous
days).
The data collected and the computer simulations indicate that the subject site is currently very
close to jurisdictional wetland status. Based upon the DRAINMOD simulations, the subject
property can successfully be returned to jurisdictional status with minor alterations. The HEC-
1 simulations indicate that somewhat more extensive alterations will provide a greater diversity
of on-site conditions and, in addition, provide a buffer to protect the water quality in Little
Sugar Creek. Using the alterations proposed in the HEC-1 simulations and running DRAINMOD
simulations of the altered conditions, the site is forecast to meet wetland hydrology criteria
for up to 34 out of 36 years.
2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Planning and Environmental
Branch purchased an 8.5 hectare (ha) (21 acre) tract of land in Mecklenburg County for the
purpose of mitigating wetlands which will be disturbed at other localities in Mecklenburg
County during construction of the proposed Charlotte Loop. This report documents the
activities Environmental Services Inc. (ESI) conducted in order to characterize hydrogeologic
site conditions, and includes a summary of soil boring data and well construction information,
hydraulic conductivity tests (slug tests), water level measurements, and groundwater
modeling. Additionally, based upon the data collected and results of this analysis, this report
presents conclusions and recommendations for hydrological restoration.
2.1 Background
The subject property consists of a 8.5 ha (21 acre) tract of land located on the east bank of
Little Sugar Creek, along NC Highway 51, across from Carolina Place Mall in Pineville,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The site is composed primarily of cleared
land, which supports a mixture of grasses, sedges, rushes, shrub vegetation, and some trees.
Currently, the project study area is not under jurisdictional control of the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers. The site receives storm water runoff from Carolina Place Mall parking lots, another
shopping center, and adjacent land. The stormwater is discharged onto the subject property
and into Little Sugar Creek.
2.2 Scope of Work
ESI's agreement with NCDOT included the following scope of work associated with this
project:
• Delineate the boundaries of any jurisdictional wetlands. This determination will be
confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• Install a series of soil borings and a network of observation wells to characterize
subsurface conditions, and conduct aquifer tests on each well.
3
l
t
1y
\
t
1 q
}
t.,
4th.
k Sk
x � -
\
t
1 q
x � -

• Collect groundwater elevation data from the wells on a weekly basis for a one month
period, in order to evaluate fluctuations in the water table at the site.
• Model groundwater conditions on site, using DRAINMOD, a computer enhanced model
for simulating shallow water table soils.
• Characterize existing vegetation on selected reference wetlands by means of field
analysis, botanical surveys, biological reports, or an evaluation of aerial/ground
photography, and develop target vegetation species (and densities) for the proposed
mitigation.
• Prepare a report documenting site conditions, results of the modeling effort, and
recommendations for the most cost-effective methods for hydrological restoration. The
report will include specific target conditions for the site for both hydrological and
vegetative restoration, and a monitoring plan to evaluate achievement of the target
conditions.
5
3.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES
In order to characterize existing conditions at the subject property, ESI personnel conducted
the following activities: 1) installation of a series of soil borings and conversion of the borings
into observation wells; 2) performance of insitu hydraulic conductivity tests (slug tests) to
determine site hydrological properties; and 3) collection of water level measurements over
a one month period in order to evaluate fluctuations of the water table. The site was surveyed
by an NCDOT subcontractor and a topographic map of the site was prepared by NCDOT
Photogrammetric Unit. These activities are more fully discussed in the following sections.
3.1 Exploratory Soil Borings and Observation Well Installation
A series of three observation wells were installed on the subject property on March 8 1995,
at locations shown on Figure 2. Well locations were selected to provide adequate coverage
of the entire site. Each well consisted of a 150 centimeter (cm) (5 ft) section of 5 cm (2 inch)
inner diameter (ID) flush threaded, machine-slotted, Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
screen, and 5 cm (2 in) inner diameter (ID) flush threaded Schedule 40 PVC riser, except at
PZ-2 where a 300 cm (10 ft) section of slotted screen was installed. Following the installation
of the PVC screen and riser, a filter pack consisting of clean coarse grained sand (#2 DOT or
equivalent) was placed in the boring annulus. A 15 cm (6 in) bentonite seal was placed above
the filter pack, and the remainder of the annulus was filled with cement grout to the surface.
A locking cap and lock was installed on the top of the riser Well construction details are
presented in Appendix A.
3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
Following completion of well installation, tests were performed to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of the soils at the site. The tests were conducted using a slug test method,
which measures the response of the saturated zone to a localized, induced stress. The tests
were conducted in the following manner: 1) the static depth to water was measured in the
well; 2) a quantity of water was then removed from the well to draw the water level down;
and 3) the resulting rise in water level with time was recorded. The time-recovery data was
then analyzed using methods given by Hvorslev (1951). The data and calculations from the
slug tests are presented in Appendix B.
6
V
s
41 PA
K
0 C?
cl
0?
c Z.
CD m O
Z
?- O
0(0
C Q C
Z
O o
Z (D -a
O CD rri
?- (o/)
! CD C)
Q ?.
0 0
D 0 O
o O

M
3

(D'
A co
rt

z
O O
O
TI
G7
0 '? c m
--1

fl 0
D N
O
A
N
W
O
O
O
C
Z1
ITl
N

? ? N
F
0
m m
F v t.. D W
g m
m o
g O0 a
v
a V' v
o m
x ?• O
+1
® O V
o O

•o
! i N
?
m
Z

O

E Z rn
m
j m Z ? D
1
t

i -

Fr? 1 D
m?
m

F N
•, v
I
O
h 00 v ® OD
N
+
?•
S .. + n
A
o °
NO TH
N
0
"
1
i !
y m ?

M
i
;c
0

? m f
m
I ?
N ••
O 1
v
\ N
N b.
p
N ?
i ?
7 ?
i ?
m
- O
m Z
m
`
+ •• F

O V
Oi O m
? ? F
o
? N 1
rrn W N v
O
® O

v
v
m
3.3 Water Level Measurements
Water level elevations were measured from the observation wells once weekly from March 22
through April 5 1995. The water level measurements were collected by use of a SINCO,
Model 51453 Water Level Indicator graduated to 0.01 feet. Groundwater elevation data is
presented in Table 1.
3.4 Surveying
A boundary and topographic survey were conducted by a NCDOT subcontractor in May 1995.
Following performance of field services, a topographic base map was prepared by the NCDOT
subcontractor, utilizing a global positioning satellite (GPS) system. Hydric soils boundaries
were flagged by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR), Division of Soil and Water Conservation, and surveyed using the Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) System. Using the data from these sources, NCDOT
Photogrammetry produced a topographic base map and accompanying files on diskettes which
were received by ESI on July 5 1995 . These files were used to generate the figures
presented in this report.
8
TABLE 1
Groundwater Measurements and Water Table Elevations
Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site
3-2 -95 30-3 0-95 4-5-95
Well No. M.P.*
Elevation Depth to
Water W.T.
Elev. Depth to
Water W.T.
Elev. Depth to
Water W.T.
Elev.
PZ-1 547.20 5.96 ?1 ? 6.78 3 Q g 7.12 7&JW
PZ-2 549.89 11.09 f3 8.22 "[i*ii 8.45 fiE'?
PZ-3 545.97 7.68 [ 11.65 #3•.3..•. ?2j 1 1.86 1€[
12+00/75 544.27 2.66 1>a1# 3.23 #1!C?f 3.40 4#8`
8+00/100 545.36 2.70 # 3.23 ¢113a
::...:.:..... 3.52 1<€
................
8+00/230 545.25 4.56 {a441S14>s 4.05 -tor 4.29 ?F>
8+00/380 547.59 796 5.72 €18 5.91 1<8
16+00/120 546.04 3.57 a?Er'r 4.52 5$C 772 E
16+00/390 547.46 11.28 >5%5[8z 11.85 a34$1> 12.15
Elevations in feet above mean sea level (msl)
* M.P. = Measuring Point
9
4.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
4.1 Regional Geology
The subject property is located in the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province
of North Carolina (Brown 1985). Topographically, the Piedmont is characterized by rolling hills
well dissected by stream valleys, with relief increasing westward. The streams generally form
dendritic drainage patterns indicating limited structural control on drainage. The Piedmont is
underlain by a series of igneous and metamorphic rocks. The composition varies from mafic
to felsic (silica-poor to silica-rich). The origins of the facies range from plutonic intrusives,
metamorphosed plutonic intrusives, to metamorphosed volcanic sedimentary rocks.
The Charlotte Belt is located within the Central Piedmont, which is also comprised of the Kings
Mountain Belt to the west and the Milton Belt to the east. The Charlotte Belt is comprised
primarily of mafic intrusive plutonic rocks which have been metamorphosed to mafic gneisses,
amphibolites, metagabbros, and some metavolcanics. The rocks of the Charlotte Belt have
been metamorphosed primarily by regional deformation. Faults and folds within the Charlotte
Belt, as well as the rest of the Central Piedmont, trend southwest to northeast (Butler and
Secor, 1991).
4.2 Local Geology
The subject property is located in southern Mecklenburg County. Based upon the geologic
map of North Carolina (Brown, 1985), bedrock at the site consists of metamorphic mafic rock
described as metagabbro, metadiorite, and mafic plutonic complexes. The bedrock on-site is
overlain by 3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft) of overburden consisting of a clayey soil at the surface
underlain by saprolitic soils. Bedrock encountered during drilling activities consisted of a mafic
to intermediate schist. Cross-sections from a series of borings conducted by NCDOT are
presented in Appendix A. The soils at the subject property are classified as belonging to the
Monacan Series (thermic F/uvaquentic Eutrochrepts). This soil type is described as consisting
of somewhat poorly-drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in recent alluvium, on
floodplains adjacent to streams. The width of the floodplain varies, and consequently, map
units of the Monacan Series are often long and narrow (USDA-NRCS, 1976).
10
4.3 Regional Hydrogeology
As discusses above, the Charlotte Belt is comprised of igneous and metamorphic rocks
covered by regolith consisting of weathered residuum and soil. Locally, a thin veneer of
alluvium has been deposited on flood plains of streams in the region. The regolith varies in
thickness from less than 30 cm (1 ft) to greater than 9 m (30 ft). Within the regolith,
groundwater moves through formational pore spaces from topographic highs to topographic
lows which generally follow the slope of the land surface. Below the regolith, groundwater
flows through fractures in the shallower zones of the unweathered bedrock, primarily along
joints and faults which have much greater permeability than the surrounding unfractured
bedrock located at a deeper, undetermined horizon.
4.4 Local Hydrogeology
Hydrogeology at the subject property is controlled by two factors; the relatively shallow depth
of bedrock and the spatial proximity and morphology of Little Sugar Creek. Weathered
bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 2 to 3 m (7 to 10 ft) below ground surface
in the three soil borings installed as part of this project. Little Sugar Creek constitutes the
western boundary of the site and serves as a hydrologic boundary to the study area. The
water level of the creek during the study period was approximately 2.7 m (9 ft) below the top
of the bank. Groundwater flow maps were prepared for the site based on fluid level
measurements collected on March 22, 30 and April 5 1995, and are presented herein as
Figures 3 through 5. The maps indicate that shallow groundwater is generally flowing toward
the southwest at the site, which is consistent with the creek's southward flow. Groundwater
was present at depths ranging from 0.6 to 2.7 m (2 to 9 ft) below land surface, with a general
trend toward shallower depths at locations farther from the creek.
Hydrogeologic conditions are affected at the site by the morphology of the channelized,
perennial stream which also serves as a storm water drainage outlet for the near by shopping
center, and two storm water drain outfalls. This stream serves as the boundary between the
portion of the property designated as Site 1, and a smaller portion designated as Site 2. The
two storm water outfalls are connected to the storm sewer system of the adjacent shopping
center, which drain a total of 18 ha (44.5 acres) and discharge onto Site 1 into localized
depressions or swales. The majority of the storm water on the northern portion is retained on-
site, as shown in Figure 6, infiltrating into the ground or evaporating into the atmosphere. A
11
N
W
L.?
rN
VN 541 a5®
'Xi r
N +
O
00 N
y 9 ?O O
3 ?O
O
V OD 4%1O
O
t O
I p ON
w
t O tr
f A'?
ON
G7 ? ?® Nip NO TH
00
O s t G? o u1
V? O
0 n Z s i N\
T =17
_ ? w -`
° ' o
f
IT7
(D (D #
(n O
O C- 0 t `'
(Q C
+ -? r t ® o
no
I
Z CD
# 4`;
o CD D
=r C7 d j
C7 (D ?• 's_ o
0 i Ul
:3'
c
t
i
370®®
i
i
W
0 ? O O
? O cl
W Z W N
N W
O O
O
'+1
C- rn
rn
o D O
3 cn -n
n C)
w C
w
O rn
O

(D
n
C7
X- ?
O V

(D
-Ti
O
r
l
(a M
CD
0 a
0

o 0
CD
KO
T
C) cu co -?
o fl
.
0 0

D
0
c
0 o a

A

`G Z
O O
O
-9
O C-
M

N

o D O

VI

N

W
O
O

i?
i
• MA
portion of this storm water eventually enters Little Sugar Creek. The channelized stream
drains an area of 38.5 ha (95 acres), and discharges directly into Little Sugar Creek.
Hydraulic conductivity measurements from the three observation wells ranged from 5.76 x
10"' cm/hr to 2.5 x 107' cm/hr, consistent with observed ranges for the region. Calculated
groundwater velocities ranged from 3.75 meters per day (m/d) to 4.82 m/d, again consistent
with observed ranges for the area.
16
5.0 MODELING & RESULTS
5.1 Groundwater Model
The groundwater modeling software initially selected for simulating shallow subsurface
conditions and groundwater behavior at the site was DRAINMOD. This model was developed
by Dr. R.W. Skaggs of North Carolina State University (NCSU) to simulate the performance
of water table management systems. The model was originally developed to simulate the
performance of agricultural drainage and water table control systems on sites with shallow
water table conditions. DRAINMOD was subsequently modified for application to wetland
studies by adding a counter that accumulated the number of times that the water table rose
above a specified depth and remained for a given duration during the growing season. The
model results can be analyzed to determine if wetland criteria are satisfied during the growing
season, on average, for more than half of the years modeled. Required model inputs include
threshold water table depth, required duration of high water tables, and beginning and ending
dates of the growing season.
During the course of this investigation, the data indicated that surface water, especially storm
water runoff, would provide the major inputs necessary to meet the wetland hydrology criteria.
Based upon this observation, it was determined that use of a surface water model was a
preferred, more appropriate mechanism for forecasting the probability of achieving wetland
hydrology at the subject site. Mr. Randall Henegar of the Hydraulics Unit of NCDOT was
consulted, regarding this observation. Subsequently, ESI and NCDOT determined that HEC-1,
a flood hydrograph model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) was a more
appropriate and applicable model for evaluating the effect of surface hydrology at the subject
site.
5.2 HEC-1 Description
The HEC-1 model is designed to simulate the surface runoff response of a stream or river basin
to precipitation, by representing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and
hydraulic components. Each component models an aspect of the precipitation-runoff process
within a portion of the basin, commonly referred to as a subbasin. A component may
represent surface water runoff, a stream channel, or a reservoir. Representation of a
component requires a set of parameters which specify the particular characteristics of the
17
component and mathematical relationships which describe the physical processes. The result
of the modelling process is the computation of streamflow hydrographs at desired locations
in the drainage basin.
5.3 DRAINMOD Results Pre-restoration
The hydrology of various soil-water conditions applicable to the study site was simulated using
DRAINMOD. The simulation evaluated the hydric Monacan soil, which is a sandy clay loam
and the only soil on-site which conservatively represents soil conditions for the portion of the
site consisting of prior-converted farmlands. Soil input parameters for DRAINMOD were
calculated by the NRCS model, DMSOIL (Baumer and Rice 1988), using soil texture data from
samples collected on site. Soil hydraulic conductivity values used in DRAINMOD simulations
were determined from the on-site slug test data. Table 2 summarizes the soil parameters used
in the DRAINMOD simulations. A depth of 240 cm (7.9 ft) was selected as the depth to an
impermeable layer, since 213 cm to 305 cm (7 to 10 ft) was the shallowest depth at which
weathered bedrock was encountered. The depth of depressional storage used in the initial
DRAINMOD simulations was four cm. The wetland hydrology criteria used in the simulation
was saturation within 30 cm (12 in) of the surface for 26 days (12.5 percent of the growing
season; set as March 21 to October 15). Simulations were conducted for time periods from
1950 to 1985 using climatological records for Charlotte, North Carolina for those years.
The DRAINMOD simulations indicated that the subject property would meet wetland hydrology
criteria of saturation within 30 cm (12 in) of the surface for at least 26 days, for 18 of the 36
years simulated.
5.4 HEC-1 Results
HEC-1 simulations assumed that the drainage basins for the northern tract (Site 1) and the
southern tract (Site 2) consisted of 18.0 ha (44.5 acres) and 33.2 ha (82 acres), respectively.
These areas were determined from measurements from maps and aerial photographs. Both
Site 1 and Site 2 were modeled for the results of a 2-year and 50-year 24 hour storm. The
assumed precipitation for a 2-year storm was 8.3 cm (3.26 in) and 8.5 cm (3.36 in) for Sites
1 and 2, respectively. The assumed precipitation for a 50-year storm was 18.5 cm (7.3 in)
for both sites. The model predicted that runoff would peak at 750 minutes 0 2.5 hr) for Site
18
Table 2
Soil Input Parameters
Volume drained, Up lux, Green-Ampt Parameters, and
Hydraulic Conductivity for Monacan Soil
Water Table
Depth (cm) Volume Drained
(cm) Upflux (cm/hr)
0.0 0.00 0.2000
10.0 0.0565 0.2000
20.0 0.2680 0.2000
30.0 0.6453 0.0625
40.0 1.1547 0.0306
50.0 1.7225 0.0142
60.0 2.3295 0.0112
70.0 2.9726 0.0068
80.0 3.6522 0.0035
90.0 4.3698 0.0021
100.0 5.1263 0.00121
120.0 6.7568 0.0000
140.0 9.2555 0.0000
160.0 13.0492 0.0000
200.0 22.2202 0.0000
250.0 35.5102 0.0000
300.0 48.8207 0.0000
400.0 75.3087 0.0000
500.0 80.7970 0.0000
700 90.3470 0.0000
1000.0 100.0000 0.0000
Green-Ampt Parameters

Water Table
Depth (cm) A B
0.0 0.0 0.00
20.0 .230 1.000
50.0 .580 1.000
80.0 .830 1.000
120.0 1.070 1.00
160.0 4.060 3.250
250.0 8.60 5.680
400.0 12.930 7.300
700.0 17.240 8.460
1000.0 19.520 18.920
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Depth to Bottom
of Layer K (cm/hr)
240.0 .39
19
1 for both the 2 and 50-year storms, with a 780 minute (13 hr) peak for Site 2. Predicted
runoff rates for Site 1 were 1.8 cubic meters per second (m3/S) (64 and 163 cubic feet per
second (cfs) for the 2 and 50-year storms), respectively. Runoff for Site 2 was predicted to
be 3.8 M3 /S and 6.3 m3/S (135 cfs and 223 cfs) for the 2 and 50-year storms, respectively.
Outflow from Site 1 peaked at 810 minutes (13.5 hr) for both the 2 and 50-year storms, with
flow rates of 0.2 m3/S (7 cfs) and 1.5 m3/S (54 cfs), respectively. Outflow from Site 2 peaked
at 810 minutes, with rates of 1.5 m3/S (54 cfs) and 2.5 m3/S (87 cfs), respectively, for the
2 and 50-year storms. Storage at Site 1 peaked at 870 minutes (14.5 hr) with 6414 m3 (5.2
acre4t) for a 2-year storm and at 810 minutes with 13,075 m3 (10.6 acre-ft) for a 50-year
storm. Storage for Site 2 peaked at 810 minutes with 7648 m3 (6.2 acre-ft) and 9991 m3 (8.1
acre-ft) for a 2 and 50-year storm, respectively. The results of the HEC-1 simulation are
summarized and presented in Appendix C.
Based upon the results of the model, runoff ceased at the same time as the rainfall (at 24 hrs),
but the model predicted that outflow from the sites would continue for another 24 hours
before ceasing, for a total retention time of approximately 48 hours. Therefore, based upon
the results of the HEC-1 and DRAINMOD simulations, and the data which indicates that
Charlotte averages approximately 20 rainfall events of at least 2.5 cm (1 in), 24 hours a year,
it is reasonable to conclude that altering the sites to increase retention time of storm water
runoff would allow the sites to be restored to jurisdictional status.
5.5 DRAINMOD Results Post-restoration
DRAINMOD simulations of the subject property following alteration by grading and redirecting
the surface drainage to maximize retention time on-site, were conducted by ESI personnel.
The simulations forecast the achievement of wetland hydrology criteria for 34 out of 36 years.
The model forecast that groundwater was present within 30 cm 0 2 in) of the. surface for as
much as 209 consecutive days. The results of the DRAINMOD simulations are summarized
in Tables 3 and 4. Based upon these simulations, it is reasonable to expect that the site will
meet jurisdictional wetland hydrology criteria following alteration.
20
Table 3
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Pre-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatological Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Records used Criteria Wetland
Radius in Simulation 0 2.5 % of Hydrological
Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
200 m 90 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continuous 18 of 36
days
200 m 120 cm 30 cm 1950-1985 26 continuous 18 of 36
days
Table 4
Summarized Results of DRAINMOD Simulations
Post-restoration Conditions
Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Average Average Average Years of Wetland Number of
Ditch Ditch Depth Effective Climatologic Hydrology Years
Spacing Ditch Radius al Records Criteria Wetland
used in (12.5 % of Hydrological
Simulation Growing Criteria
Season) Achieved
85 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1985 26 34 of 36
continous
days
85 m 90 cm 90 cm 1950-1986 26 35 of 37
continous
days
21
6.0 RECOMMENDED SITE ALTERATIONS TO PROMOTE WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Simulations discussed in Section 5.4 indicate that the subject property could achieve wetland
hydrology for the required period of 12.5% (26 days), with suitable alterations. The
recommended alterations would increase retention time of storm water runoff on the property,
and thereby increase infiltration and saturation of the top 30 cm of on-site soils. These
alterations primarily consist of grading the site to enlarge and connect the existing swales, and
constructing weirs to control runoff from the subject property, allowing the retention time of
water to be controlled, as well as the base elevation of surface water to insure the
achievement of wetland hydrology. Other alterations, such as increasing the area draining to
the subject property are neither practical nor desirable.
6.1 Recommendations for Site Grading
Grading of the subject property should be conducted with two goals: 1) to maximize the
acreage returned to jurisdictional status; and 2) continued protection of water quality in Little
Sugar Creek. Based upon these goals, ESI , recommend that grading be conducted in the
following manner: 1) remove and stockpile the top six inches of soil (these soils will be used
as topsoil after grading is complete; 2) grade the site as shown in the proposed grading plan
prepared by Mr. Randall Henegar, and attached to the mitigation plan.
22
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Baumer, 0. and J. Rice. 1988. Methods to predict soil input data for DRAINMOD ASAE
Paper No. 88-2564. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss,
soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Brown, Philip M., et al. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-.500,000 scale.
Butler, J. Robert and Donald T. Secor, Jr. 1991. "The Central Piedmont." in The Geology of
the Carolinas, J. Wright Horton, Jr., and Victor A. Zullo, eds. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville TN.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., J.D. Bredehoft, and I.S. Papadopoulos. 1967. Response of a finite-
diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research, 3, pp
263-269.
Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengtson and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage in the
lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6). 1679 -
1688.
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management model for
a Louisiana sugar cane field. J. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4: 18 - 28.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28 (3): 785-790.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Tech. Bull. No.
267, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State University, Raleigh. 54
pp-
Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and R.O. Evans. 1991. A computer simulation study of pocosin
hydrology. Wetlands (1 1): 399 - 416.
23
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx and G. Wyseure. 1987. The use of simulation models
to evaluate the performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proc. of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State Univ., pp. A67 - A76.
Department of the Army. 1990. Corps of Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package User's
Manual. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA
USDA-NRCS. 1976. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Publication of the
National Cooperative Soil Survey.
24
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS AND GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS
COORDINATES: LOGGED BY. JLH
TOC ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Bore & Core
G.S. ELEVATION: DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
ELEVATION DATUM: DRILLING METHOD: HSA
DATE DRILLED: 3-8-95
1.9' STICKUP
SAMPLE PID
WELL DESCRIPTION TYPE REC RESIST U.S.C. SOIL DESCRIPTION (PPM)
Portland Cement
Grout A
?
Very moist, orange/brown, slightly sandy, silty
v
G
A
A
Bentontte Seal -1 2 . CLAY, wet at 2.5'
i
2" Sch 40
PVC Riser 4 Formation "tight" at 4.5
$ 18/24 4/6/8 Mottled oran e-brown, black, white
weathered b6drock
Formation hard at 5'
6
2" Sch 40
PVC Screen
i
8

20-40 Sand
Filter Pack

10 S 20/24 10/15/
24 1 Saturated mottled, dark green/gray/rust
weathered schist
Boring terminated at 10'
12
Water Level at .7T
14
16
18
20
22
24
25
SOUTHEASTERN
ENVIItONMENTAL
AUDITS, IN.
Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site
Mecklenburg County NC
NCDOT
PZ-1
FILE NAME: sugrpzOl
MADE BY. PJS
CHECKED BY. BLH
COORDINATES: LOGGED BY: .JLH
TOO ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Bore & Core
G.S. ELEVATION: DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
ELEVATION DATUM: DRILLING METHOD: HSA
DATE DRILLED: 3-8-95
2.8' STICKUP
SAMPLE U.S.C. SOIL DESCRIPTION
WELL DESCRIPTION TYPE REC RESIST
Portland Cement 10
Grout LL LL Very moist, brown, highly plastic, silty CLAY
2 i L
Bentonlte Seal

4
"
2
Sch 40
PVC Riser S 18/24 2/4/5
Brown, stiff, silty CLAY
6
2" Sch 40
PVC Screen

8 i
Brown
soft
hi
hl
lastic
silt
CLAY
,
g
,
y p
,
y

20-40 Sand
Filt
P
k
er
ac
S 10/24 4/1/1 Brown
firm
sandy lens at 9'
silty
clay
10 ,
,
,
,
Wet at 9.5'

12 :•• ?
Becoming gray, more sandy

14 Gray, soft
S 1 24/24 1 52180/ Gray, medium, coarse, SAND, saturated,
some gravel
16
Boring terminated at 15 feet

1 g j Water Level at 13.5'
20
I
22
24
25
SOUTHEASTERN
ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDITS, IN.
Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site
Mecklenburg County NC
NCDOT
PZ-2
FILE NAME: sugrpz02
MADE BY: PJS
CHECKED BY: BLH
PID I
(PPM)
COORDINATES: LOGGED BY: JLH
TOC ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Bon? & Core
G.S. ELEVATION: DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
ELEVATION DATUM: DRILLING METHOD: HSA
DATE DRILLED: 3-8-95
2.8' STICKUP
SAMPLE U.S.C. SOIL DESCRIPTION PID
WELL DESCRIPTION TYPE REC RESIST (PPM)
Portland Cement
Grout
v A
0
Stiff, brown, silty CLAY
2 A ,.
-
2" Sch 40
PVC Riser 4 Stiff, mottled brown, black and tan
Bentonite Seal S 18/24 5/5/13 Medium--d?rained, weathered bedrock, with large
fra mentt of parent material
A
i
t
t 5'
6 uger res
s
ance a

PVC screen i Becoming more felsic, finer grained

8 Auger resistance at 8'

20-40 Sand
Filter Pack

10
; S NR 10/20/
31
Mottled, as above, becoming mafic at 10'
Parent rock at 10'
12 Wet at 10'

(diabase dike/sill)
14 Auger refusal at 13' j
i
Boring terminated at 13.2'

16 j

18
20-1 1 1
22-
24
25
SOUTHEASTERN
ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDITS, INC.
Little Sugar Creek
Mitigation Site
Mecklenburg County, NC
NCDOT
PZ-3
FILE NAME: sugrpz03
MADE BY: PJS
CHECKED BY: BLH

N
................._ i

MW
jI
j mw
i
LLJ:
?1
v
MW -' s
X
o
.
i MW ?
,
,

i i
/
i 10+00
PROPOSED WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Mecklenburg County
Project 8,1670 102 (R211 DA)
MW Z;
Mw mw : MW = Monitoring Well

i
i 0 100 200
?i SCALE IN FEET

\ `\
MW

.\ ••.\ ? _ BOO

- MATTHEWB R0.
E
_ - NC 51 PINEVILL
,
Sheet 1 of 9
Environmental Project: ER94018.5 Figure:
` I Services, Inc. Proposed Mitigation Site
1318 Dale Street
Suite 220 Little Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC Drawn By: PS Scale: As Shown
Raleigh, NC 27605 NCDOT R211 DA
Checked By: BLH
Date: July 1995

0? ?, ??',, A J
J
ML 300' LI STA. 2+00
ML 300' LT. STA. 3+00
ML 300' LT. STA. 4+00
ML 300' LT. STA. 5+00

o
G
p o _ .
- L _ ..
„N?
? .J ; I I I I I I
I
I
_
Z°A r? I I I I 1 III' F
n A p I I I I ifl; I I i s

g J I iI

C
I ; I I I ;
a{ I ?
I; I I I I V I I I
' I', I II ?
IgIII; g ?I
' I,
I I I I ?I ?I I I
I s ? I
FI
I I I :I?I I
I I
I
I I
I IE

? S<
I??
o
? I I I I° Isl ! 1
I 8 II I II
G II I II
I? I
I ? ? ?
?? ! I I
I I I I I
I I I? , I
I I
i > ? °
? I I ' ',I I I? I

I
? y
I
'
I
I z ICI ,I II '
I
I I III
C
?I III

I
I N
? ?s
?
o ?I
?I?I I
I III ?,
Q ?
a I
> " I?I I III m 'I

o I

o
I

I
o

?,
_IgI
11 1

I r-

_
m
I

.I .
'm°
c I I
I I I II
I III y :I
I i l m I I I iII
m o I i s? ? gl I I I

-
r I i I P I
Z?_
a
. I
n N I I I _ ? I I ;I I I
f I

O?CQ I I I ? ? N ? II 1 I I
'
cQ cQ
? I I ? s I I ' I I I ?
_
Nn?? I
I I! I J ? ` I I ' ;I I I: f
jo n? J I I ? I I I I I !
? I I ? ? I I i I;
?
Z ??
I' I ICI I I i
n m I I I I I I I I I.
I I I II I I I
' gI ,
J I I I I '
; I I I s I
I
I I
I I
I II
II i I I
I I I
? ?I
?I,
I I II I I I ', ? sI,
I i I I III ?I '?
I I I II I I I ?I
I. I I, I I III rl '=
I I I II Ii I I'?
I I II 'III Is
I I I '?
I
I ? I II II I I ?
° _
I
I
I
1 I
I
I ?
I I
I,
I II
II
II 11 I
Q I ;
II ,
I ; I y
1
1
1 I.
I !
1
I I
l
I ', II
II
I I ', I I

I I'

I
? 1 I II , I I '
C? d `'ti ? 1 ,
I: ,
I II ! I I >
F
CD 1 1! I, II I I ?I
; Q 1 I I I I I I
a tz cn
m rn I 1

m ?q w' I 1 \ 1 i I
CD m r- I 1 \ 1 1 1,
c
U z'
CA O N3
o
mj
'
I
1
I
1
1

O
_ O
C7 -

I

I

1

?
c
5. I I 1 1 1
1 Z 1 1
a w'. I I I 1 1 1
I I 1 1
i 1

. Q I I I 1 1 1
FD ? ?
n
? Z I I I I 1
.. Cn I I i I I V
.. rn I I
I r I V

w°

CA + r

,° ., r
CA +
ch°
o° °° o° oo ? o°

co
C O O O O O O O O O P O W
O 4
O
Q d P
Wet ML 300' LT. STA. 5+50 ML 300' LT. STA. 6+00 ML 300' LTA TA. 7+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 5+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 9+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 10+00
Q, g oo A, o
QNd?, ? I I 1
Z0.4 I' I I I II
1
C'1 ? r°, p I, I ', 1 I I ?? 1 I
? ? ? I ' I I II g i I.
I
, s
r
r I
?-
g I I ? II
' I I
;
I i j I I ? 11 , I i I
I; 1 I I ? II

I II i
? I

I? I; ,
I
i
I' If
I_ I
I
I I I
i a:
??
I ? ?? I
? I:
i

I' I I ? s I 1y1:
I
I I ?1 0. M 1 I?1',
? ' I
' I I o1 I? 1?
'
? I,
o
I

I
I
I ml I? 1 ?
, I
, ?
?I I? ; I ? ?aa ' ? I

I I I ?1 ICI I `< I,

I
of ?, I?
14
I
o
I' ,
I I
I I I I I I I
I 1

I I ',
I I
I i I I I
I ? II I
I i I
I.
i ? I i 1 I I I
I i I i
I
_ N
p I t
I
.? I _ _ I
_ Ii .
o ;
i F
I
I
? I
I
I I ?
iI I
I I I 1 I
I I iI 1 I
1
CD
7rr? I
1 I I
1 I I1 1
Z I
n- ?0 I I I I II I I
II
Oc
?' j I 1 II I I
c
-I? ?? I
I I I i I I I
I,
N
N I I 1 I
I
?°
o
n a« I. I I I I
I 1
'
FD 5 I I
D
? I i I I i II 1 1
?
cl) I I
I I
_ I I i I I, I
C7 I
I I I
I I I1III
11 1111
? I
1 I
I I I'
I
I I
1
I ', i
1 I I' II
111; II i
I I I1
I II
I
I ' ` I"'?? I I
I
1
I

I

I q q q
11 i

11' o

I
I

.
I
I I I
?
1 y I I, Ii
I ,? I i1??
_ I I, II

1
I
I I I 111
4 I :
I

1 I I:I G
1 I '1 II I 1, II
1
1 °.I I I
° 1 I
?I
p I 1
1 I
I i I
1
1?
o CD
? ?
?I
I• I
1 1 I
I I
?I
IIgI I
I I
I
?l
i I N I 1 1 1 t
I"
IC
I
I i 11 I
I I I
?
?I
I I I iI i i ?

- I I I I
I
I
I ?

C?
d
'b o I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I I i
° I I I II I II
CD
x .
?° _ I! 1 I
a 'Y m rn I i 1 1 1
td I . . sag '
bd :S ? ? ! I ' 1 1 1 ?'
I
s. I 1 1 1 1
m ? ?w 1' 1
' II 1; 1 ?1
1 1 1 1. 1 I
o
? n

1

1 .1

1:

1

1 ':
°r° o •a c
o cc j
v 1 1 1 1 R 1
2 co
N o
1
1
1
1
1
1
CJt
<
=

•
N

1

1

1

1

1

1
j ?' ? ---I 1 1 1 1 1 1
°n w '? 1 1 1 \ 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
d n ?
?
'?
1
1
I
i
1
1

N a 1 1 1 1 1 1
.. rn I I I ' I '' I i
1 I I 1
L D r? 1
CA cn
r ' ? I
'
cn? it +

Opp ' 1
i cn CO
: Ul+ ?rn co
,
w o
A+
C
?' !^ n
9)
pp mp
:.pp t i7p
O ?p OO Op
p p p p
1 0 !

CTI Ul
W
O CJl
.A
O C71 CTl
cn W
O O V7 CA
A co W
O
A (.n
W .p
W
A
W .
A W1
C p Q C O Q O Q ca Q o p
?G w? p
z
A
J
s
tA
K
K -u
0
zxE-0
N
CD
0 =3 O 0 C/)
?a
mom
ND 00)
0=3a6
D X ?
0 cu

a ?

m
m
CO
cn o
2 6

C
N
C
?G Cn
_ 3
CD
C
W
0
I
I.
N /
CD / . .
O
/
\
\
l
I.
i
I
o I
i
I
i
? I
p
N Cn I
m
w
o ? 0 I
?CD
go C)
I
cu - - r--
° ctn z I
o ? p I
O N ?
Z
co O
z
n Cn I
m I
? I
ML 300' LT. STA. 5+
C" ? E
En
O O O

I'
I II
I!
I
I

I ; I, ,
I
II III',
I
mI I ;,LII ;
I ? ?? ? ! oil III
Z ' ?I I ?? II
I _ ; ?I I ?? II
N 4 ?? ?, I I III

IgI?.g II
I - ?o ; II??I?II
I r SI
z. l Ay l sl?l I

7 - i I II I
I Nay I I :?I?II
I I I sl I I
I III
I
I ? ?
? ?I? I :III ;
oI? I ',III
I I I
Fig
I ? s .
I \I II
I ?? I \i II
II
I II
i i II
ML 300' LT. STA. 7+OQ ML 300' LT. STA. 8+00
P Ln O O C p
??we?op
C? R

\

w
L
I
_..
_. ..
:
o ;_. _. ..._.
.
..
.
I

I

? I I
cp cn

rn I
I
o
?r oo
n
v
Cb L.

V F
?c ..
c

D

i

I I
all
I I
coN =?'
? ? .
N'
1
Z! ? ? ? ?I ?I
? i
I
, I I
sv
cD I

y
o
O
z

/ ,t

II ,

rn Ioj j

\ ' I I i
? I I
,
\ iR

p i II
Z C-0
o- ;* o
??
I I I I
I: I
I
v?CDCn I I, I I
OvrcAa

110
n
\
1c
= I I, I I I
D-

C7 \
\
I I I I
I I
I
I.
I
? , ,
\ I II I I
? I II I I. I

? I I I I I, I
\ I I ? ? ? ,' I I I' I

? i ' j ?? I I ? I I
\ I
I I I ', I 4 I I ?` I ': ''

CD
o
I
I I
,
I
I I
I I
I I ? ? ?? ? I I: I
I I
I I
i
Cc: N

1

I I I I N e I I 11
?' C7 0
' ?I? I I I I
I y ? I ? I
,
, I I
I I' '
cu G I s I I I c ? $
I I
I I I I
? ? C
o-
IyI
(
i _ g o?
i ? ?I ?
I ! 8I'.
.. m I
1 ?
=I I
? ICI I
I? I
I
' 9
?? I s I
I I ! ?I`
I: gi

CD I IyI I I ? I I !
W o I
I Igi :
I<I I
I I I I
I I I I
i I?1
2 0D I C I I i I I , ! ,! IA I
? '
I I I
I '
I C I , I I i
: ?
.
`
, ? I I I; I I I I I I
II
MI I I I I i I ?I''?I
d ?
? ? I
I I I
I I ? I?
I I I I
I , I I sI5',1
, ?IF ,
?
.. I I I I
i' I I I
I; '
I I
I! I 'I
,
C ML 300' LT. STA. 10+50 ML 300' LT. STA. 11+Ob ML 300' LT. STA. 11+50 ML 300' LT. STA.'12+00 ML 300' LT. STA. 13+00' ML 300' LT. STA. 14+00

CD
CA :3 cn
0 v, cn
0 0 cn v v,
0 0 0 o
a a o o
o
o c4i o v o
et 00
. ,,
Z?A ?et
C7 ? ?
v e6
N
C
O
CD O
Z? 0
?:3 CD ?
017 cn a
-iCO (O -.
Mn"c
NO n
D XU)
CD
n I
C? d b
0
a. Cd
? .C
.. m
co
? .tom
W
O
CO L
2

N
v? v,
\//?? 3
'c'o^
V. J
0
0

CO
CO
00
0

O
a
m M
? w Q
c n '?
CD . m
1
Z .r
co
v .
oQ?1 .Z
N C7
N c S 'J
CD
D w :E5
CD -
ti O
G .?
cn
m

4Ln 01
O 0
ML 300' LT. STA., 15+00 ! ML 300' LT. STA. 16+00
I
I. ? I I I
I 1 ;I?I? 1
I' 1 'loll I
I
C
I $?
I A
i I?
I
I I ? I ?! Iyl ? h
I I 1 ?; igi II

I', III II
Ii I?!IIII
I I '. 1 IIII
I I 1IIII
I I 1 X1111
1 :IIII
I 11? i 111 1
?i? I 1?,III
i
?Is'1111
GIs. I i
r
I
I
I? 1 '.II
I
I I ?? .III I
I I q? I II I
I I II ? I II I
I I I I II: I tl
I I IIII 111 I
I i
I I 11{I? I
1411+
I
' I
1
I I II
1 ,j1
1 ,11 I
I 1
I I k6 I ,11 ?1
?I
.
1

I ;4 'i4
1 'I NI
11
I I 1
!1 ?I

I F-
I
=m
'II
I 1
i I gl
1
I I ,1 i
I ',I
'
I I

' I
,
1 ;I 1
I I 1 ;I 1
I I 1?1 1
. I 1?1
i I 1?1 1
isl I
'

i 1
,I 1
1 I
I I I .
1 i
1
1 1
1 t
I
1 1
1 1
1 1
i. 1
1; 1
1
?1 1
'1 1
1
I
I
I
1
I

' II ''
cn
Ln+' t
1I
Cn
wcn
? ?'i CCD C)
D
C" LTI &I ul
CT W A.- W W D
c 0 0 0 0 D.
cn w
0 0
a
cnLn
w
CR
al
o
m
M)
cp
co
cn
0
L
m
OD
SD
it
a
CA
cnLn
w
CR
al
o
CD
cp
C/)
a
(D
m
SD
o
n
zr
CD
CD
CD
(D PC,
Cb
cb
Cn
co
;I
w
2!
Jim
>
CD
CA
cn
C/)
rTl
CA
cnLn
w
CR
al
o
;I
w
Jim
jR 0
5R
9
cn
M
cn
cn
ML 300' LT. STA. 15+00
ML 300' LT. STA. 16+001
Ln
w
Ul Ln
4� Ln co
n
m
CA
cnLn
w
CR
al

APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING CALCULATIONS
Well Number:
Computed By: _
Casing diameter d =
Borehole diameter D = 10, 3 Z
Length of screen L = 21 C, 4
Time lag at 0.37 H/Ho T = 4 74?
Date: 3c) Aco, 4 ? r
G. /fir r/ .
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(seconds)
d2 In C 2 m L m= 1
kh = D
8 LT
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn & Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal/
kvertical
Assume kh = kv = 1
k h = ?,S X(o s'r, /c P<
3, '( S ?`(a ",r
Little Sugar Creek PZ-1
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
1.00
s
8
7
6
5
\
4 \
O \
2
= 3
\
\
2
\
\
0.10
47{.
0.00 400.00 800.00 1200.00
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
ALL NO.
P OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER Z (SrU??
BOREHOLE DIAMETER " l
SCREEN DEPTH
REFERENCE POINT
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED
LOCATION L 77.1, S T 4? ?? ? o?
DATE_ ?,? y 9S
TIME
COMPUTED BY
ASSISTED BY
PERSONS OBSERVING Z-1
EVACUATION METHODg
STATIC WATER LEVEL Z,
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
TIME/(f ) GROUNDWATER
DEPTH H H/Ho
0 7, cf) 2-
????N?/
6 v 7,2-2 7d' D,
75- 7//
7
O,
7 03 Zll
12,0 p 4".300
/O v r73q

'?v o, 5-9
3?6 Y.?a Z?S ?, 4 SS
4,z -

Gds 3, ?? l/? p,2/7
2/0
?O 3. a ?4' dr /Z/
/
12-96) 3. /a 0, j?- 0.121

-w TES
Well Number: L SC /°L-Z Date:
Computed By: j
Casing diameter d = S o? (cm)
Borehole diameter D = ZG 3 Z (cm)
Length of screen L = (cm)
Time lag at 0.37 H/Ho T = 7? d (seconds)
k = d21n 2mL? m=1
h D
8 LT
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn & Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal/kvertical
Assume kh = kv =1
sCti, /tic
kh = , 9 7 ?w
2, S x(a ????,
Little Sugar Creek PZ-2
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
1.00 \
s
s
6
5
4 ,
I
O
2
r 3
2
-------
0.10
7J O
0 400 800 1200 1600
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
LL NO._ GSG Pz' Z
OP OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER Z
BOREHOLE DIAMETER .--f
SCREEN DEPTH
REFERENCE POINT oC
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED
LOCATION L-? rrlo, Stets' C?-v-4
DATE ?t Y?r- 9 S
TIME
COMPUTED BY
ASSISTED BY
PERSONS OBSERVING
EVACUATION METHOD u,
STATIC WATER LEVEL 9, f 7
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
TIME GROUNDWATER
DEPTH H H/Ho
v
7 2
?o 7 058
so 3%
76 r`3 z o 9 3S
120 1(,11-7 (,/ C) ,
ao 15,7) 34 p,
216 lS- sq ?.oz 0 3

X20 o, 70 Z(
2- ? 01 (;,?S
7,7 `(, 20 0,-5002
7Sd Z, 9 ?t 3, 3 0,' G 7
hod 12. o, 3 52-
l2-6 Cl 0, l 7-)
lSo 0 /v, 33 0, 7? e) dos

-VOTES
Well Number: Ls c 1,?z 3 Date: 3"01<4
Computed By: (fQy??
Casing diameter d = s a'f (cm)
Borehole diameter D = zo. 3 z (cm)
Length of screen L = 20, ? 6 (cm)
Time lag at 0.37 H/Ho T = a Z (seconds)
kh = d2 In I 2mL
8 LT
m=1
Note: This equation is valid only for a typical monitoring well situation. If the
situation differs significantly consult Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Winterkorn & Fang, pp. 29-35.
Note: m = khorizontal
/kvertical
Assume kh = kv =1
kh= k?0 L( (./sPs ?6 k<0
Little Sugar Creek PZ-3
Recovery vs. Time
Best Fit
2
1.00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
,
0.10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.01
0 200 400 600
TIME (sec)
DRAWDOWN TEST
IWLL NO. LSc 12-3
P OF CASING ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
CASING DIAMETER -2 BOREHOLE DIAMETER A '

LOCATION S? v ?r C?-Pi /-
DATE_J ?/ +` 9 S `
TIME
COMPUTED BY 9/-,//7/a y
ASSISTED BY
SCREEN DEPTH PERSONS OBSERVING 611- /./-,y
REFERENCE POINT 7e) C EVACUATION METHOD mss,
AMOUNT OF WATER REMOVED STATIC WATER LEVEL C,
RECOVERY DATA
ELAPSED
TIME GROUNDWATER
D
PT
H
EE H H/Ho
0 `
y q
C
j / / )

o (v
«? ,L 1
z,o B.tZ Z ?. Z/ 9
36,() 2- l< S? 0,36-5
3Ca 7r LI ©,-279
?zo 7, Sy 6< 9 G.ZIS
Z p,/.SZ
L? 0,32- 7y

-ffTES
Lf)
o ?
rn U >.
oC 3
W
00
00
O b?D
N a" w A
O
O
N
tmo
^ NZ
CL
?0
o E ?
a? 2":E
F- _ Co
T
W?Y
2C)
J ?
O
ti
O
LO O LO O 0 O LO O LO O LO O LO O `$
v? U
CO CO LO LO ? d M M N N
(sp) mou
rzl?

I I

I

I I
j

i i

,
I

I =y , I I ' j I I

?
I j
I r
i ,
' i I j I
I I J I
! If

I ? !
i I

I
I
,

I I ? I
I
? I I
I
Ln
rn
cm
rn U >.
2 3
W
O
O _
U
N o a
a w A
i_
L
i
i
I ?
Cl.
0 /
c O
Ya CD
I r
o T
i m2 N
U(D
a? o rn ? i J I
U) U) m
.~. °o C)
-J LL
U
°'
} C cn (n Z
N Q C:
O o >
i I ? ? Oi±rU
= Co
U
W ? Y
i
i
i
? II I
i i ? I I i IT- O
N
O O O O O O O ?
U
En
c0 tsi cri CV c- O d S
(4-9aOe) 96eaOIS
W t/1 .-? v3
Site I - 2 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Storage Stage (El.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
2 30 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
3 60 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
4 90 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
5 120 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
6 150 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
7 180 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
8 210 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
9 240 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
10 270 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
11 300 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
12 330 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
13 360 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 545.0
14 390 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
15 420 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
16 450 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
17 480 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
18 510 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
19 540 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 545.0
20 570 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.001 0.00 0.00 545.0
21 600 0.07 0.05 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 545.0
22 630 0.08 0.06 0.02 2.00 0.00 0.10 545.0
23 660 0.12 0.08 0.04 3.00 0.00 0.20 545.0
24 690 0.15 0.08 0.07 6.00 1.00 0.40 545.1
25 720 0.351 0.14 0.21 15.00 1.00 0.70 545.1
26 7501 1.23 0.26 0.97 64.00 4.00 2.20 545.4
27 780 0.20 0.03 0.17 34.00 6.00 4.10 545.7
28 810 0.14 0.02 0.12 17.00 7.00 4.80 545.9
29 840 0.091 0.01 0.08 10.001 7.00 5.10 545.9
30 870 0.07 0.01 0.06 7.001 7.00 5.20 545.9
311 900 0.061 0.01 0.05 6.001 7.00 5.10 545.9
32 930 0.03 0.00 0.03 3.001 7.00 5.00 545.9
33 960 0.03 0.00 0.03 2.001 7.00 4.80 545.9
34 990 0.021 0.00 0.02 2.00 7.00 4.60 545.9
351 1020 0.021 0.001 0.02 2.00 7.00 4.401 545.8
36 1050 0.021 0.001 0.02 2.001 6.00 4.201 545.7
37 1080 0.021 0.00 0.02 1.00 6.00 4.00 545.7
38 11101 0.02 0.001 0.02 1.001 6.00 3.801 545.7
39 1140 0.02 0.00 0.02 1.001 6.00 3.60 545.6
40 1170 0.02 0.00 0.02 1.001 6.00 3.40 545.6
411 1200 0.02 0.00 0.02 1.001 6.00 3.20 1 545.6
42 1230 0.02 0.00 0.02 1.001 6.00 3.00 545.5
43 1260 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.00 5.00 2.80 545.5
44 1290 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.00 5.00 2.70 1 545.5
45 1320 0.01 0.00 1 0.01 1.00 1 5.00 1 2.50 545.4
46 1350 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.00 1 5.00 2.40 545.4
47 1380 0.01 1 0.00 11 0.01 1.00 1 4.00 2.20 545.4
48 1410 0.01 1 0.00 1 0.01 1.00 1 4.00 1 2.10 545.4
49 1440 0.01 1 0.00 1 0.01 1.00 1 4.00 2.00 545.4
50 1470 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 4.00 1 1.80 545.3
51 1500 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 ! 3.00 1 1.70 1 545.3
52 1530 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3.00 1.60 54563
53 1560 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3.00 1.50 545.3
54 1590 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 3.00 1.30 1 545.2
55 1620 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 1.20 545.2
56 1650 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 1 1.10 545.2
Page 1
Site I - 2 year flood
57 1680 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.101 545.2
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.001 545.2
59 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.901 545.2
60 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.801 545.1
61 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.80 545.1
62 1830 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.701 545.1
63 1860 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.601 545.1
64 1890 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.601 545.1
651 1920 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.601 545.1
66 1950 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.501 545.1
67 1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.501 545.1
68 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.401 545.1
69 2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.401 545.1
70 2070 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.401 545.1
71 2100 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.301 545.1
72 2130 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.301 545.1
73 2160 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.301 545.1
74 2190 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.301 545.0
75 2220 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
761 2250 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.201 545.0
771 2280 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
78 2310 0.00 0.00! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
79 2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
80 2370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
81 2400 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201 545.0
82 2430 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
831 2460 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
84 2490 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
85 2520 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10' 545.0
86 2550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
87 2580 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
88 2610 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
89 2640 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
901 2670 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.101 545.0
911 2700 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.10i 545.0
92 1 2730 0.001 0.00i 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
93 1 2760 0.001 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10' 545.0
941 2790 0.001 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
95 2820 0.001 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.10 545.0
' I
i
Totals 3.23 1.101 2.13 1 189.00 1
Page 2
c M
rn U >.
W
O
O
U
d
M z
a w A
O
06
00
N
ID
O
CD
N ?U
a: o
?U)z
Q.
CD
co
T
J
O
N
ti
O
LO ? N O ? ? N o
N
r r- r r y?v?i V
?doz
N
CA
(sp) mold
? ai M 7
f? V] .r VI
II
r

I a
I
?

m L
O
` ?
I `=o I

I
I

I

I

!

1

II
? 'I

?

I LL
m ! ! i
I ? 0 I
i I
I 1

I -
1
1

i
I
I
II
I I
I
!
I ' 1 !
1 1 ? ? I I i I !
1 ? I
rn
c m
rn U a
OC 5
W
O
w o 00
(h a w A
O
O
O
N
4)
O
tM2 CD
N cn (n z
CO
??
.? o ?V
7,m P
1- _ C0,0
C
?
U _
W cnY
J ?
O
ti
O
? N
O co CO d' N O?v U
r ?AN OD
I
I
i
i
I

i

i
I
I

o
y
Um
i

I i

I

-
I m`
cn
_
?o o
j I
I
I ,

I i
I
i

-

I
I -
i -
I
? I
Site 1 - 50 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Outflow (cfs) IStorage Stage (El.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
2 30 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
3 60 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
4 90 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
5 120 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
6 150 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
7 180 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 545.0
8 210 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
9 240 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
10 270 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 545.0
11 300 0.05 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.0 545.0
12 330 0.05 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.1 545.0
13 360 0.05 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.1 545.0
14 390 0.07 0.04 0.03 2.00 0.0 0.1 545.0
15 420 0.07 0.04 0.03 2.00 0.01 0.2 545.0
16 450 0.08 0.04 0.04 3.00 1.01 0.3 545.0
17 480 0.08 0.04 0.04 3.00 1.01 0.4 545.1
18 510 0.09 0.04 0.05 4.00 1.01 0.3 545.1
19 540 0.10 0.04 0.06 5.00 1.01 0.7 545.1
20 570 0.11 0.04 0.07 6.00 2.01 0.8 545.1
21 600 0.12 , 0.04 0.08 7.00 2.01 1.0 545.2
22 630 0.15; 0.04 0.11 9.00 2.01 1.3 545.2
23 660 0.23 0.06 0.17 13.00 3.01 1.6 545.3
24 690 0.31 0.06 0.25 19.00 4.01 2.1 545.4
25 720 0.651 0.10 0.551 40.00 6.01 3.2 545.6
26 750 2.651 0.18 2.47 163.00 24.01 6.8 546.3
27 780 0.39 0.01 0.38 83.00 52.01 10.3 546.7
28 810 0.271 0.01 0.261 38.00 54.0! 10.6 546.7
29 840 0.171 0.01 0.161 21.00 49.01 9.7 546.7
30 870 0.141 0.01 0.131 14.00 41.01 8.6 546.6
31 900 0.12 0.01 0.11 11.00 34.01 7.5 546.5
321 930 0.111 0.01 0.10 10.00 24.0: 6.8 546.3
331 960 0.101 0.00 0.10 9.00 17.0! 6.31 546.2
341 990 0.091 0.00! 0.09 8.00 13.01 6.01 546.1
35 1020 0.081 0.00 0.08 1 7.00 11.0! 5.81 546.1
361 1050 0.071 0.001 0.071 7.00 9.01 5.71 546.0
371 1080 0.071 0.00 0.07 1 6.00 8.01 5.61 546.0
381 1110 0.051 0.00 0.05 1 5.00 8.0: 5.61 546.0
391 1140 0.05 0.00 0.05 1 5.00 7.01 5.41 546.0
401 1170 0.051 0.00 0.05 1 4.00 7.0i 5.31 545.9
411 12001 0.051 0.001 0.05 1 4.00 7.01 5.2 545.9
42 1230 0.041 0.00 0.04 1 4.00 7.01 5.01 545.9
43 1260 0.04 0.001 0.04 1 4.00 7.01 4.91 545.9
44 1290 0.041 0.00 0.04 1 4.00 7.01 4.7 1 545.8
45 1320 0.041 0.00 0.04 3.00 7.01 4.6 545.8
46 1 1350 0.041 0.00 1 0.04 1 3.00 7.0: 4.4 1 545.8
47 1 1380 0.04 1 0.00 1 0.04 1 3.00 7.0' 4.3 1 545.8
48 1410 0.03 1 0.00 1 0.03 3.00 6.0 4.1 1 545.7
49 1440 0.03 0.00 1 0.03 1 3.00 1 6.0 ! 4.0 1 545.7
50 1470 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 1 1.00 6.0! 3.8 1 545.7
51 1 1500 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 6.0: 3.6 1 545.6
52 1530 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 6.01 13 1 545.6
53 1560 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 6.0! 3.1 545.6
54 1590 0.00 i 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 5.0I 2.9 1 545.5
55 1 1620 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 5.01 2.6 1 545.5
56 1 1650 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 5.01 2.4 545.4
Page 1
Site 1 - 50 year flood
57 1680 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 2.21 545.4
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 2.1 545.4
59 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 1.9 545.3
60 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.8 545.3
61 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.6 545.3
62 1830 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.51 545.3
63 1860 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 1.4 545.2
64 1890 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.31 545.2
65 19201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.2 545.2
66 1950 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.1 545.2
67 1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.0 545.2
68 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.9 545.2
69 2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.9 545.2
70 2070 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.8 545.1
71 2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.8 545.1
72 2130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.7 545.1
73 2160 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.6 545.1
74 2190 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.61 545.1
75 22201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.51 545.1
76 22501 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 545.1
77 22801 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.41 545.1
78 2310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.41 545.1
79 2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 545.1
80 2370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 545.1
81 24001. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.31 545.1
82 2430 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.3 545.1
83 2460 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.31 545.0
84 2490 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.31 545.0
85 25201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.21 545.0
86 25501 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.21 545.0
87 25801 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.21 545.0
88 26101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.21 545.0
89 26401 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.2 545.0
90 26701. 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.21 545.0
91 27001 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 545.0
92 27301 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
931 27601 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
941 27901 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
951 28201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
96 28501 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
971 28801 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
98 29101 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
991 29401 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
100 29701 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
101 30001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.1 545.0
1021 30301 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
103 ? 30601 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 545.0
104 30901 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 545.0
105 31201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.01 545.0
i
Total 7.31 1.27 8.58 1
Page 2
L rn
rn U
rr ?
W
O
O
O
Q G
w w A
O
CL
co 00
N
LL
'O
W
a)
N (?
CnCnZ
OO 00
W
C)
J
O
N
ti
O
. I !
kn
d0 N O 000 ? N O d
r r r ds? U
??Nz
too
(S}O) Mou w too
I
i
I

r
_ I
i
j

-m
m? v
o
= ^
y? 3
?
Ya v
m

I

m= 3
m o
I
I
I
H?
m I
I II

I I I
I J~ I I I
? I II I

I ?
i I

j

I
I I r
I
? !

Ij
I
I ! , 11
i I ?-

I I I
I I ? I
i
LO
rn
? rn
rn U >.
ac 7
W
O
O?/?
(D U ?1
c7 'o eq ?
a 'w' A
O
00
7- 00
N
O
(D CD
O
NU
?cA Z
EMD
• Q >:
N p ?0
i
O (?
T
6 5 C)
r w
U)
J ?
O
N
ti
O
n
O O O O O O O C)
r-: co d cM N O l2 "" d c z
11"i
(?.-aaoe) afieao?s W ? ? ? ?

i I
1 I
?
I

I

I I
i
I
i
I ?

r
I L

`
I

-
?
-
I
J

I Y I ? I

LL
I J m i

ry
I

i
I
I
I' I I
I
I I I I

i I
Ii ,I I I?
I ; j I I

I I?
II
i I ?
I I I I I I I j l l I
I
Site 2 - 2 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Outflow (cfs) (Storage ( Stage (EL.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 543.0
2 30 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.001 0.01 0.0 543.0
3 60 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.00 0.01 0.1 543.1
4 90 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.00 0.01 0.1 543.2
5 120 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.2 543.3
6 150 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.3 543.4
7 180 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.4 543.5
8 210 0.021 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.5 543.5
9 240 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.5 543.6
10 270 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.6 543.7
11 300 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1.01 0.6 543.8
12 330 0.02 0.00 0.02 4.00 2.01 0.7 543.8
13 360 0.021 0.00 0.02 4.00 2.01 0.8 1 543.9
14 390 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.01 0.8 544.0
15 420 0.001 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.01 0.8 544.0
16 450 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0! 0.8 1 543.9
17 480 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.7 543.8
18 510 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 1.01 0.7 11 543.8
19 540 0.00 I 0.001 0.00 0.00 1.0i 0.6 543.7
20 570 0.03 0.001 0.03 2.00 1.01 0.6 1 543.7
21 600 0.041 0.00 0.04 5.001 1.01 0.7 1 543.8
22 630 0.05 0.00 0.05 7.00 2.01 0.8 544.0
23 660 0.21 0.00 0.21 18.00 2.01 1.2 1 544.2
24 690 0.11 0.00 0.11 23.001 2.0 i 2.0 1 544.5
25 720 0.18 0.00 0.18 24.001 2.01 2.8 1 544.9
26 750 1.75 0.00 1.75 127.001 30.01 4.2 545.4
27 780 0.15 0.001 0.15 135.00 50.01. 5.71 545.9
28 810 0.23 0.00 0.23 67.00 54.0: 6.21 546.0
29 840 0.06 0.00 0.06 37.00 50.0' 5.8 545.9
30 870 0.041 0.00 0.04 18.00 43.0 1, 4.9 545.6
31 900 0.041 0.001 0.04 11.001 28.01 4.11 545.3
32 930 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 15.0 3.51 545.2
33 960 0.001 0.00 0.001 2.001 7.01 3.2 545.1
34 990 0.001 0.001 0.00 1.001 0.3 3.011 545.0
35 1020 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.001 2.0! 2.91 545.0
36 1050 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.001 2.01 2.91 544.9
37 1080 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 2.0: 2.8 544.9
38 1110 0.021 0.00 0.02 2.00 1 2.0: 2.71 544.9
39 1140 0.021 0.00 0.02 3.00 1 2.0! 2.7! 544.9
40 1170 0.021 0.00 0.02 1 4.00 2.0 : 2.7: 544.9
41 1200 1 0.021 0.00 0.02 4.00 2.0 2.81 544.9
42 1230 0.021 0.00 0.02 3.00 1 2.0' 2.81 544.9
43 1260 0.021 0.00 0.02 3.00 1 2.0' 2.81 544.9
44 1290 0.02 1 0.00 0.02 1 3.00 1 2.0: 2.81 544.9
45 1320 0.02 1 0.00 0.02 1.00 1 2.0! 2.81 544.9
46 1350 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.00 1 2.0 I 2.91 544.9
47 1380 1 0.02 0.00 0.02 1 3.00 1 2.0 2.91 544.9
48 1410 0.02 1 0.00 0.02 3.00 1 2.0: 2.91 544.9
49 1440 0.01 1 0.00 0.01 1 3.00 1 2.0 2.91 544.9
50 1470 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 2.0' 2.91 544.9
51 1500 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 1 2.0: 2.81 544.9
52 1530 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 2.0: 2.71 544.9
53 1560 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0! 2.61 544.8
54 1590 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 2.0 2.61 544.8
-
-
-
55 1620 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 2.0! 2.5 54
4
.8
56 1650 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 . 2.0: 2.4 i 544.7
Page 1
Site 2 - 2 year flood
57 1680 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.3 544.7
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.2 544.6
59 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.1 544.6
60 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 544.6
61 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 544.5
62 1830 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.9 544.5
63 1860 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.8 544.5
64 1890 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.7 544.4
65 1920 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.6 544.4
66 1950 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.6 544.3
67 1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.5 544.3
68 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.4 544.3
69 2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.3 544.2
70 2070 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.3 544.2
71 2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.2 544.2
72 2130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.1 544.1
73 2160 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.0 544.1
74 2190 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.0 544.1
751 2220 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.9 544.0
76 2250 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.8 544.0
771 2280 0.001, 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.8 543.9
78 2310 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.7 543.8
79 2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.6 543.8
80 2370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.6 543.7
81 2400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 543.6
82. 2430 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 543.6
83 2460 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 543.6
84 2490 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 543.5
85 2520 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 543.4
86 2550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.3 543.4
87 2580 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.3 543.4
88 2610 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 1.0 0.3 543.3
891 2640 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 0.2 543.3
90 2670 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1.0 0.2 543.2
911 1 2700 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1.0 0.2 543.2
92 1 2730 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.0 0.2 543.2
93 1 2760 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.2
94 1 2790 0.001 0.00 1. 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.2
95 11 2820 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.1 543.1
96 1 2850 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.1
97 1 2880 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.0 0.1 1 543.1
98 1 2910 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.1
99 1 2940 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.0 0.1 543.1
100 1 2970 0.001 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 . 0.0 0.1 543.1
101 1 3000 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.1
102 3030 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 543.1
103 1 3060 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 543.1
104 1 3090 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 543.0

Total 3.351 0.00 3.35
Page 2
Lq
00 rn
rn U
a
LU
C) u
C o z
M w w A
I
_ L
G C)
- W
m? 00
N
yo w I
U
m -- 3 j l
U? c ? I I I
mo x o
_ j !I
LL
I
I I-
d m v
-_> N co z
_ co
or-
.r 0 ?0
Ij ? icV
T
CD
I I t- _ ?
i
' o
-A rp
C °o LO °o LO C) C% z
N N ?- r 4
" oo .3 a?
(Sp) Mold w?:n?a
rn
G rn
rn U
2 3
O LU
O
M V pi
eo ?
ow W.
A
O
co
O
N
O'^
r
N
^ ()
co vJZ
C
- Oa
O ? O
=U
_
C
?
C)i
J ?
0
N
ti
O
O O O O O O O O O O $
ai 06 I` (C; ui d cM N p °? cv
?N
I
I

i
I

i
i
I
I
t
? r
yo
? T
I
I Y N
N cm
( I

I N f0

i U c i
o

? cn I
?
-
rna
o

i a, u.
?? I
I
r
j u
°?

I I I I
I
I i

i

i
I I
I
,

I
l I I
I ?
i
I
I
I ?0
Site 2 - 50 year flood
Sample No. Time (min) Rain (in.) Loss (in) Excess (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Storage IStage (EL.)
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 543.0
2 30 0.03 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.0 0.0 543.0
3 60 0.03 0.00 0.03 4.00 0.0 0.21 543.2
4 90 0.03 0.00 0.03 5.00 1.0 0.31 543.4
5 120 0.04 0.00 0.04 6.00 1.0 0.51 543.6
6 150 0.04 0.00 0.04 6.00 2.0 0.71 543.8
7 180 0.04 0.00 0.04 6.00 2.0 0.91 544.0
8 210 0.04 0.00 0.04 7.00 2.01 1.0 544.1
9 240, 0.04 , 0.00 0.04 7.00 2.0 1.21 544.2
10 270 0.05 0.00 0.05 7.00 2.0 1.5 544.3
11 300 0.05 0.00 0.05 7.00 2.0 1.7' 544.4
12 330 0.05 0.00 0.05 8.00 2.0 1.91 544.5
13 360 0.05 0.00 0.05 8.00 2.0 2.11 544.6
14 390 0.07 0.00 0.07 9.00 2.0 2.41 544.7
15 420 0.07 0.00 0.07 11.00 2.0 2.7 544.9
16 450 0.08 0.00 0.08 12.00 3.0 3.01 545.0
17 480 0.08 0.00 0.08 13.00 9.0 3.31 545.1
18 510 0.09 0.00 0.09 14.00 12.0 3.4 545.1
191 5400 0.10 0.00 0.10 15.00 14.0 3.51 545.2
20 570 0.111 0.00 0.11 17.00 15.0 3.61 545.2
21 600 0.121 0.00 0.12 18.00 17.0 3.61 545.2
22 630 0.15 0.00 0.15 21.00 19.0 3.71 545.2
23 660 0.231 0.00 0.23 29.00 23.0 3.91 545.3
24 690 0.311 0.00 0.31 40.00 29.0 4.11 545.4
25 720 0165 0.00 0.65 69.00 38.0 4.51 545.5
26 750 2.64 0.00 2.64 219.00 52.0 6.01 546.0
271 780 0.391 0.00 0.39 223.00 81.0 7.81 546.0
281 810 0.27 0.00 0.27 110.00 87.0 8.11 546.6
29 1 840 0.171 0.00 0.17 61.00 70.0 7.21 546.3
30 870 0.14 0.00 0.14 37.00 55.0 6.31 546.0
31 9001 0.12 0.00 0.12 26.00 47.0 5.41 545.8
32 9301 0.11 0.00 0.11 21.00 39.01 4.61 545.5
331 960 0.101 0.001 0.10 18.00 26.0 4.0 i 545.3
341 9901 0.091 0.001 0.09 16.00 20.01 3.81 545.2
351 10201 0.081 0.001 0.08 14.00 17.0 3.61 545.2
361 10501 0.071 0.00 0.07 13.001 15.01 3.5 i 545.2
371 1080 0.071 0.00 0.07 12.00 13.01 3.51 545.1
38 1110 0.051 0.00 0.05 11.00 12.01 3.41 545.1
39 1140 0.051 0.001 0.05 9.00 11.01 3.41 545.1
401 1170 0.051 0.001 0.05 9.001 10.01 3.31 545.1
411 1200 0.051 0.001 0.05 8.00 9.01 3.3 i 545.1
42 1230 0.041 0.001 0.04 8.00 8.01 3.21 545.1
43 1260 0.041 0.001 0.04 7.00 8.01 3.21. 545.1
44 1 12901 0.041 0.001 0.04 7.00 7.01 121 545.1
45 1320 0.041 0.00 0.04 7.00 7.01 3.21 545.1
46 1 1350 0.041 0.00 1 0.04 6.001 7.0 3.2. 545.1
47 1380 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.0 1 3.21 545.1
48 1 1410 0.031 0.00 1 0.03 6.001 6.0 1 32. 545.0
49 1 1440 0.031 0.00 1 0.03 6.00 1 6.01 3.11 545.0
50 1 1470 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 3.00 1 5.01 3.11 545.0
51 1500 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1.00 1 3.01 3.01 545.0
52 1, 1530 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 3.01 545.0
53 1 1560 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 2.01 2.9! 544.9
54 1 1590 0.00i 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 2.8 ! 544.9
55 1 1620 1 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 2.01 2.71 544.9
56 1 1650 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.6 i 544.8
Page 1
Site 2 - 50 year flood
571 1680 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.5 544.8
58 1710 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.4 544.8
591 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.3 544.7
601 1770 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.2 544.6
611 1800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.1 544.6
621 1830 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.1 544.6
631 1860 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 544.5
6411 1890 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.91 544.5
65 1920 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.8 544.5
66 1950 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.7 544.4
67 1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.71 544.4
68 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.61 544.3
69 2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.51 544.3
701 2070 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.4 544.3
71 2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.3 544.2
721 2130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.3 544.2
73 2160 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.21 544.2
74 2190 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.11 544.1
751 2220 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.0 544.1
761 2250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 1.01 544.1
771 2280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.9 544.0
78 2310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.81 544.0
791 2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.8 543.9
801 2370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 0.7 543.8
811 2400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.6 543.8
82 2430 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.001 1.0 0.6 1 543.7
831 2460 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 1.0 0.6 543.7
84 2490 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1 543.6
851 25201 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1 543.6
861 2550 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 543.5
871 2580 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.4 1 543.5
881 2610 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.3 1 543.4
891 2640 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1.0 0.3 1 543.4
901 2670 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.3 1 543.3
911 2700 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1.0 0.21 543.3
921 2730 1 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1.01 0.21 543.3
931 2760 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 1.01 0.21 543.2
941 27901 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.2; 543.2
951 28201 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.2
961 28501 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.01 0.1 ! 543.2
971 2880 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.1
981 2910 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.1
99! 2940 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 543.1
1001 2970 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.1
1011 3000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 543.1
1021 3030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 543.1
1031 3060 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.1
1041 3090 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.11 543.1
1051 3120 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.01 543.1
1061 3150 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.0 543.0
I I
Total 7.26 0.00 7.26
Page 2
o' SUS o
Nan
s? aaw vN?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 4, 1999
Ms. Cyndi Bell
N.C. Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
yl JAN :6:19799,9
WETLANDS GROUP
aux„ WATER QUALITY SECT? '
Subject: 1998 Annual Monitoring Report for the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation
Site, Mecklenburg County
Please find enclosed the 1998 annual monitoring report for the Little Sugar Mitigation
Site.
In January 1999, a representative of the Planning and Environmental Branch will contact
the recipients of each report in order to facilitate a discussion of the annual monitoring
reports.
If you have any questions prior to these discussions, please contact Phil Harris, Natural
Systems Unit, at [phone]. Thank you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
41, c /?47k,
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Phil Harris, PE, Natural Systems Unit Head
David Franklin, USACOE

I ANNUAL REPORT FOR 7998

C

1
H

J

Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site
Meddenburg County
Project # 8.U870122
TIP # R-211 DG
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 1998

n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description........................................................................... 1
' 1.2 Purpose .........-. 1
1.3 Project History . 1
...............................................................................
12.0 HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................3
2.1 Success Criteria ..............................................................................
2.2 Hydrologic Description .................................................................... 3
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .................................................... 3
2.3.1 Site Data .............................................................................. 3
2.3.2 Climatic Data ........................................................................ 5
2.4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 7
3.0 VEGETATION ............................................................................................8
3.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................. 8
3.2 Description of Species .................................................................... 8
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .................................................... 9
3.4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 9
' 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................10

I]
5

1

0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLES
TABLE 1 - 1997 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ........................................5
TABLE 2 -1998 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ..................................5
TABLE 3 - VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS ........................................... 9
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ......................................................................................2
FIGURE 2 - WELL LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................4
FIGURE 3 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH ...........................................................6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS .......................................11
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS ...........................................................................24
APPENDIX C - MONITORING PARTNERING MEETING MINUTES ..............26

' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
' The Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site is located in Mecklenburg County. The site,
which encompasses approximately 21 acres, is situated near Highway 51 and Leitner
Drive (Figure 1). It is designed as mitigation for a portion of the Charlotte Outer Loop
project, extending from NC 51 to Rea Road. The project provides for the restoration/
creation of bottomland forest, shrub-scrub wetland, and emergent marsh.
' 1.2 Purpose
I

u

In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, Little Sugar Creek is monitored for both
hydrology and vegetation. The following report describes the results of the hydrologic
and vegetative monitoring during 1998 at the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site. Also
included a consecutive day analysis of the 1997 hydrologic data. The 1997 data is
provided as an addendum to last year's report in which cumulative days were
incorrectly tallied to demonstrate hydrologic success.
1.3 Project History
January 1997
March 1997
September 1997
Winter 1997
March 1998
September 1998
Monitoring Wells Installed
Site planted
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Sluice Gates Closed
Site Supplemental Planted
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
1

,f

1
o`°
'N ON,

}r
Gy_
? F
og?
L
zke
? .. ,,James-K. Polk Memorial State Historic . ite r
¢! Litljl?e„S'1! C 521 i QA rs^
ZJ_
® 1991 DeLo ne. Street AdsUSaA
G :S FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
y o
Little Sugar Creek Wetland Mitigation Site

-' A..

0

0
YL
2
Oy
O .

J
e4 PARKCR

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

me
-- ------ -----
X60!

y y : "t
y ti

C
n
n

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the
surface) by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Areas
inundated with less then 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-
wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be
classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Mecklenburg County begins March 22 and ends November 11.
These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures will drop to 28° or
lower after March 22 and before November 11.' Thus the growing season is 233 days;
minimum wetland hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or 29 days. Also, local
climate must represent average conditions for the area.
' 2.2 Hydrologic Description
Nine monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and three surface water gauges were installed in
' 1997 (Figure 2). The automatic monitoring wells and rain gauges record depth to
groundwater and rainfall, respectively. Daily readings are taken throughout the growing
season.

Three sluice gates are being used to control the water levels. During 1997, the gates
were intentionally. left open to allow hardwood trees and scrub-shrub vegetation an
opportunity to initially grow in upland conditions. The gates were closed to trap water in
the site during the winter of 1997-1998.
Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and surface
gauge. Precipitation events are included on each graph as bars. The precipitation data
is not complete for the season; therefore, there are some gaps in the rain data.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve
inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was converted into a
' Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, p. 61.
3

l
• CA
I!1
+
r + I C I ? ' /'I',
? „ I , ? '-a I lil
I
1
i II
j (.
?a? may. ,?? . >. ? !
1 U
r

FIGURE 2
WELL LOCATION MAP

' percentage of the 233-day growing season. Table 1 presents the data for the 1997
growing season, while Table 2 presents the data for 1998.

I?

7
Table 1
1997 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS.
Monitoring
Wel 8% 8%,12. 5%? >> 25% " "al=% .
LSC-2 ? 3.9
LSC-4 ? 5.6
LSC-5 ? 0.9
LSC-6 ? 1.3
LSC-7 ? 1.3
LSC-8 ? 2.6
LSC-9 ? 7.3
LSC-11 ? 18.9
LSC-12 ? 10.3
Table 2
1998 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
..,. .
?ti7??+°1°
5% = 8% 8% -.12;5%
> 12.5%
Actual'%'
LSC-2 ? 2.1
LSC-4 ? 3.4
LSC-5 ? 0.9
LSC-6 ? 1.7
LSC-7 ? 1.3
LSC-8 ? 1.3
LSC-9 ? 1.3
LSC-11 ? 3.9
LSC-12 ? 2.1
The surface water gauges have indicated consistent surface water in the channels
throughout the growing season.
' 2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 3 is a comparison of 1998 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for the area.
' The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for the
Charlotte area. These percentiles represent monthly rainfall data collected from 1948
to 1996. The bars are the monthly rainfall totals for 1997 and 1998. The data was
' gathered from a National Climatic Data Center rain gauge in Charlotte; because of data
availability, the 1998 rainfall encompasses precipitation through September. The 1999
' 5
1

ifL
d
r
V
? V
az
o ?
0 0
M L
Y l4
d =
L V
U
L
co)
i+
W
J

i
I

CL
O O
M
O O GO 1-- (0 LO d M N O
(-UI) Uoi evd1DOJd
U
N
0
0
O
Z
0
L
Q
U)
Q
7
c
0
c
A
lQ
a
Q
`m
a?
LL
c
c?
N
C
N
2
N
C.
O
M
c
.cv
rn
a?
r
C
cc
cr-
r-
0)
O)
FIGURE 3
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH

' annual monitoring report will include a 30-70 percentile graph with the monthly rainfall
from the winter of 1998.
' With the exceptions of January and April, the precipitation in 1998 reflected average or
below average rainfall. This was especially true in the summer months. The months of
' April, June, and July of 1997 indicated precipitation above the normal range. The
remainder of 1997 reflected average rainfall in Charlotte.
' 2.4 Conclusions
While the Little Sugar Creek Mitigation Site continues to function as a water detention
' basin for storm water runoff from Carolina Place Mall, none of the monitoring wells in
1998 met the 12.5% criteria for wetland hydrology. Though two months in 1998 were
wetter than normal, Charlotte received average to below average rainfall for the
' remainder of the year.
At a site visit conducted in November of 1998, the site showed water levels 4
channels to be approximately two feet below normal based on vegetation growth. Soil
samples taken in proximity to monitoring wells did not indicate the presence of
' groundwater within two feet or hydric soil indicators.

0

u
0

r]

7

1
L

0
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria states that there must be a minimum mean density of 320
characteristic trees species/acre surviving for at least three years in the bottomland
forest area of the site. Characteristic tree species are those species planted along with
natural recruitment of sweetgum, red maple, and loblolly pine. Loblolly pine cannot
comprise more than 10% of the 320 trees per acre. In addition, five other character
tree species must be present, and no species can comprise more than 20% of the 320
trees per acre. No quantitative sampling requirements were developed for the
herbaceous and shrub assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria.
3.2 Description of Species

0

H
1
The following shrub species were re-planted in the Wetland Shrub Restoration Area:
Cornus amomum, Silky Dogwood
Leucothoe axillaris, Dog Hobble
Rhododendron arborescens, Smooth Azalea
Sambucs canadensis, Elderberry
Viburnum numdum, Possum Haw
Aesculus sylvatico, Painted Buckeye
Lindera benzoin, Spicebush
The following herbaceous species were planted in the Channel Areas:
Juncus effusus, Soft Rush
Scirpus validus, Bulrush
The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus pagoda, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Betula nigra, River Birch
Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
8

1 3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (2 year)
H

0

Table 3
VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS

? ' a x x O y "? ? v a
a w ,
0
F
v
.. ?

a cn A ? C7 ? U O cn ?' '?' H I? A

1 2 2 3 7 30 159

2 -+ 10 1 3 2 2 18 30 408
3 15
1 1 3 1 4 4 2 30 635
AVERAGE TREE DENSITY 521
Heavy weed and grass competition throughout all planted areas. The shrub plant
material is highly suspect, therefore may be part of the problem with lack of success
after replanting. The herbaceous plant material is progressing well. A majority of the
' areas are becoming established with soft rushes, bulrushes, and lilies. There was
some naturally regeneration of Cottonwood, Swamp Dogwood, Sycamore, and
buttonbush.
' 3.4 Conclusions
' Approximately 9.8 acres of this site was planted in bottomland hardwoods in March,
1997. There are two vegetation monitoring plots located in this bottomland hardwood
area, Plot #2 & #3. The results of the Second Monitoring event yielded an average
density of 521 trees per acre, well above the 320 tree/acre minimum requirement.
Approximately 3.2 acres of this site was planting with scrub, shrub species. Plot #1
results show a density of 159 trees per acre was obtained after replanting this section in
March, 1998. The canal areas (3.7 acres) was planted with herbaceous plant material.
From visual observation, this plant material is becoming very well established in the
..bottom and side slopes of the channels on the site.

i
1
' 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the hydrologic data gathered at the Little Sugar Creek site, NCDOT hopes
to first examine the intended goals and functions of the site. Further study should help
' to identify any problems with the site. NCDOT also plans to:
• Continue annual monitoring of site hydrology through the growing season (March 22
' to November 11).
• Continue annual vegetative monitoring.
1
1
10

I

APPENDIX A
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS

1 11

(•ui) uoi;e;id!OOJd
U
M N N
L
N
J
LO
O O
Lo O o
r
ao;ennpunag o; y;doa
?- k
k ' it ?s4«.: u 4 w `. t:
?' ,a^ m c
G' a '?" 7 't 1 s *3r
7t, tt ? i?4? r x.. ?? 4 < drat ?f? '
96-AON-60
96-AON- LO
86-10O-t,Z
86-100-9 L
86-100-80
86-deS-OS
86-des-ZZ
86-des-t, L
86-des-90 j a
86-6ny-6Z o
86-6ny-LZ
86-6ny-S L

86-6ny-g0 co

86-Inf -8Z
N
86-Inf-OZ CO
86-Inr-ZL y !
86-Inf-b0

86-unr-gZ
i
42
86-un r-g L
86-unr-0 L
86-u n r-ZO I
86-AeW-gZ
86-AeW-L L
86-AeW-60
86-48W-LO
86-Jdy-CZ
86-Jdy-g L
86-JdV-LO
86-1BIN-OC
86-JeW-ZZ
N

L
co
J
M
(•ui) uoi;e;idioaJd
LO LO LO
N N r- ?- O
k
.4, +
O
86-AON-60
86-noN-L0
86-100-bZ
96-100-9L
86-100-80
86-deS-OE
86-daS-ZZ
86-daS-b L
86-daS-90
86-6nV-6Z
86-6nV-LZ
86-6ny-E L
86-6ny-50
86-Inf -8Z
86-Inr-OZ
86-Inf -ZL
86-Inf -b0
86-unf-cZ
86-unf -8 L
86-unf-OL
86-unf -Z0
86-AeW-9Z
86-AeW-L L
86-AeW-60
86-AeW- L 0
86-Jdy-CZ
86-Jdy-9 L
86-Jd`d-LO
if 86-1eIN-OE
86-JeIN-ZZ
N
?s!
a?
(D
d ' Q
E VI
? ?W
QW)
o
c
cc
Imo.
L o to o LO O
?- ?- N
(•ui) JalempunoJO o; y;dad

L
N
d
J
M
(•ui) uoi;ejidioaJd
LO LO LO
N N r p

O
86-AON-60
86-noN- W
86-100-17Z
86-100-9 6
86-100-80
86-des-0£
86-des-ZZ
86-das-t q
86-des-90
!aI
86-6ny-6Z

86-6ny- 6Z a?
86-6ny-£
I
86-6ny-g0 co ;

86-Inf-8Z

86-Inf -0Z
Q O
N
E
86-Inf-Z6 'I U)
86-Inf-t0 R
O
86-unf-9Z -
M,
86-unr-gL ! .C:
.
86-unr-06 , j
86-unf-ZO
86-AeW-9Z
86-AeW-L L
86-AeVV-60
86-AeW-60
86-jdy-£Z
86-jdy-5 L
86-jdV-LO
86-1eIN-0£
`- 86-JBA-ZZ
N
LO o 0 o to o
(-ui) jalennpunoj0 of ty;daa

tip
L
R
A'
m
J
O
86-AON-60
86-nON- W
86-100-t,Z
86-100-9 L
86-100-80
86-deS-OE
86-deS-ZZ
86-daS-t, L
86-d9S-90 CL
86-6ny-6Z
a?
86-6ny-LZ
Icr,
86-ony-g L
86-6ny-90 co
;
86-Inf-8Z

86-Inf-OZ C
w

86-inf-ZL m in
86-Inf-b0

PF-unr-a7
(•ui) uoi;ejidi0aJd
LO LO LO
M N N ?- ? O
1
1
-4
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. Please advise ""'you
have any questions regarding the meeting, minutes, or agenda.
Sincerely,
? L
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
VCB/el
Attachments
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
July 23, 1998-9:30 @ Century Center in Photographic Conference Room
NCDOT/Resource Agency Partnering Meeting to Discuss -Monitoring Issues
AGENDA
Introcluctions
Purpose & Goals of Heeling
Standardize the monitoring reports
flvcb-ologic Moniroring
Consecutive vs. Cumulative days
Data interpretation
I 'ei?etation Monitoring issue -
Nanted vs. Voluntary piant_
1'VIonitoring timetrame
Success Criteria
Geographical considerations
Reference systems
Alonitoring Report Presentation
Text
Figures to be included
Tables
I'liotographs
Submittal dates
0

igg'?CV
' ?JAM9

' = Gerv:• 5

n

-
?s
.Da.vl(? CU?C

C
.;Lncv
i

?rf9y ?•. N1fE
a^, l4dn
' ?ANDy y 2?FF i?
G ? / W ?rf'tsv

I1rGDOT - 733 -7??4el (x-3c)

P-f.,~
?r

rJ '
Te

;wig 1
t9)^?-ga, X 22.
c' u 2 ? Z
<< X z?

DOT

---7-77:0

i
i 1

'i 1 ~I t 1{
~ 11
1 ~ ~ ~ f1 I
~ _ . ~ ~ ~h , ~
~ ~ ~ O ~ ~
Z
V }1 _ • ~...t~, ~.c r r ~,1 ~ ~ ~ G
t
Z t 'i ~.~~'.l ~ i' i M
i i ~ C{ ~ ~ I 1 ~
s ~ / . H~' ~ ~;i~~ ~ 1 ~ • 1~ ~
~ ,i~ 1 ~ ~,1' / \ n~`
t ~ ~ ~~','1 ! 1`• ~.I r 1~ v~ / 1•p~ ~ ~ ~ Y O. I~. 9
j~ I e i;,, i , .
~ - , - , i h' ~ 1 ~ 'i
~ ~ ~ } v ~ i~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . - ~ 'a y' ~ ` ~
• ' ~ \ ~ . - ',III -
~ ' ~ ,1~y ~ ~ t ' _
i ~ ~ l .'r I ~ ~r ti _ ~ 1 ~ • r _ ~ ~ ~ ~„~1
1L I _ , i , ~~~a
~~1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ,~~1 ~1, ~
/ ' I _o..*~i. ~ 1 ~7~~ ~ ~.;1 ~ - ' " + ~ 1, ;',1 , '1,~
i y ~'i ,~i
' _ ' ~ ~ ~ / ~ tl ~ I ~ ~_r~ ~ ~S, ~ •R 1~ f~ ( ~ 1 I' ~ _
_u~ : . • - I ~ ~ ~ p . ~ r Il ~ • . _ _ ~.,1.
• , ` i~ _ I ~ . ~ ~r,
-rte. j' ~ - - _ _ i ~ I' 1
i , ~ , ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~h J I 1. ` i~ ~ l,.
.r ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ;l ~i 1 ~ I 11 'il.. • • / ~ • 1~ f
~ 3
. I ~ 4 i ~ - 3 4 ~ ~ ~ f; ~ ~'i ,
A A ~ • 1
r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ) ) _ I ~ I ~ ~ 1
r' it I r ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ , ~ ~ I? i { ~ ~ • J ' L
` ~ ~ j i ( ~ r ~ ~ • ~ j
~ _ w ! ~ ~ ~ X11 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~I iy f., ~ j ~I • ~ i ~ ~ L4
, ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ • 1 , ~ ~ , ~ ~
~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ` - , r ~ n ` r
~ f , . ~ ~ ~ r . ~ . ~ _ . I . `
yy ~ , ~ i _ , _ r. _ ~ ' , ,4 _ ~ ~ , _ - ~
~ 4
. , • ~ q. ~ , v~,,: ~ i'' ~ . ~ 1~
j
i - r- Y. ,e r. t
f a _ , _ _ ' FIGURE 3
` ~
~ _ ~ y
• • ~ FEET 3 ~ • Y • •
1 `
i CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT
0 100 200 300
Date: July 1995
,
ar o e u er oo l i a r i i a ion Project No: R211 DA
N i e u ar ree ie ie
Nah ~a'^lia e c e n u r o u n, o r a r a ro i n a Drawn By: Geo/Graphics
of Tramporlafion

I
i

1 ` ~
1
{ ~ . ~1~~1?'
' 'i ~ I 11 T
,l ~ 1 f- - ~
~ ~ 0
~ l',. Z ~ f,
s ~
v , ~ ~ ~
, ~I ~
,j~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~ ,~1,~ ~r . ` ~ ~ i ~ r ` \ i K I
~ ~ i ~ ~ r ~ jSyj ~ 41 Sl 1 '..11
YYtl i. \ ~1 ~.~.~,-I • ~ ~ 1 Y 1 ~ ~I
~ ~ ' ~ 1 l 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ i~' it
M b y~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~L $ i~F .'~t ~ti` - - Ipl. i ~ 1
~ a 3 ~ . ~ ' ~ `
_ i ~ , i + _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,I
~I i ~ ~ 1 ~ i
~ - ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
i 1V: .r - • A, 1 ~ ^
~ ' ' ~ ~ , ~ ` v \ ~ _ ~ ~ I I j ~ ~ ~,..M~.. _.~----x ~ ~ ~ i I _ ~ 4 ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ _ i - ~ ~ ~ i ~ - ,
~ I it ,h _Y i _ ? _ ! / ~ ~o. I a ~ ~ , _ _ I
i! . ~:y.. . ; _._-.te=a ~3 . `
. , I ~ ~ : ~ - yy ~i t :i ~ i,, _ ~
~ ~ ~ r " ~ - } ~ ~ _ ~ i ~~I t / ~ 1 1 !i ~ M I
% j t j I___ - ~ d ~ _ ~ ~ j 1~ ~ \ ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
I ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t . ~ i' 1 ~
$r , i ' , 1` ` l
4 ~ s 3 ~ ,
' b ~ r r . ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ r` • ~ . . _ ~ ~
i r' ~
I ~ ~4 • ~ 3 i i V i, (I
~ ~ ` YYY '1 ~ a , )
~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ Sf V l ~ ~ =`~I ~ ~ ~ 1
~ :a E ~ ~ ti.~ I ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , , ~ f r
~ 1 ~ l ~ 1 ~ ~ I ' i l ~ ~ s I r
~ - J ~ b ~ ~~t ~ ~ , E . ~ ~ ~ <<< ,
• ~ r ~ _ . i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,1 o~
~ - ~ ~ i ~
' ir<'jn
_.r_ _yi. s r ~~.G
~ ~ , i f
i, - yam, .j ~ '1:: . 1 ` i! ~ r~ ~ ~ ` - 1 `a, - ~
_ i r, , ~ FIGURE 3 _ ; .
y ~ _
_i _ _ y FEET
x ~ , ~ ~ • e
1 ~ ~
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT 0 100 200 300
5
Date: July 1995
• ~
ar o e u er oo I I ~ ~ I I a Ion Project No: R211 DA
N l e u ar ree i E e le
North Carolina e c e n u r o u n, o r Mportmmt o r a ro Ina Drawn B : Geo Gra hies Y / P
of lromportalbn

CLASS " ~
B STONE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY ~ FOREBAY Z
0 0~'
u u CLASS I RIPRAP 55 : ~
c~~' P

~

9J'
i
; ; PLUG
„ „ ~ CLASS B
d TONE WITH FILTER ~ CLASS B S E
FABRIC ~ ~ , ; FOREBAY CLASS "B" RIPRAP
1 i 'i ' ~ ~ f/1,
~i ~ ~ , ~ , , (,LASS I RIPRAP
~ ~ ~ J: I c~/1' i ; ~ i ~ _ .
i - ~ _ t l~•` ~ _ ~ 1 ~ ;S
P~ ~ EMERGENCY o~ ~ ERGENCY SPILLWAY ,
~ ~ ~ CLASS 1111 _ . , . _ - CLASS I RIPRAP w.~
t - - ~ ~,r~, EMERGENCY
1 ;~ti , a ~ti i ~ R;, SPILLWAY
_ I ~ ~ . ~ _ I ~ 1 , ~ ~ , . , ~ , ~
~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ly 1 N' , i~ ~ ~ ~,i~`
1 , ~ 11 ~ ~ 0 ~ , p 0 , ~ ,.1 i ~
i i • ~
~ ~ ` ~ ~ .yy,p._ -•rT'' ~ ~ , i , ~ x < < _ Fs , j ~ ~ ~ -
1 ~ rf 1, ~t ',i r. ~ ~ n n
"~a- ~ CLASS B a' ii c ~i ~ ~
rf5 _ _ 1 ~ WITH FILTER ~ ,fi`s: ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ i' FABRIC PIC ~ i. l
~.i ~ \ ~t!~......
.lr r Ir .
~ 11 If /i
CLASS B FIGURE 11
WITH FILTER
FABRIC FEET
0 100 200 300
Date: July 1995
a r o e u e r u er oo I I a Ion Project No: R211 DA
u ar I e ~u ar ree I e
North Carollno e c e n u r o u n Wporlm~n? O U n ~ O r a ro Ina Drawn By: Geo/Graphics
01 lromportatlon

CLASS "B" ~ STONE
0 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
FOREBAY z
P9 1, 1.
CLASS I RIPRAP ~ c`~y
rc
s Y r

~
I
~ q ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ PLUG
p.,
_

,
CLASS B
WITH FILTER _ , , ~ CLASS B STONE
FABRIC CLASS "B" RIPRAP
, ~ ~ o>~ FOREBAY ~ ~
~ I ~ 11
i ~i ~ ~ _ ~ ,s E - CLASS I RIPRAP
I ~ 42~ 1 ,1 j i I ~ - _ _ _ ~
1 1 1 1 I 1 Opl ~ i. ; ~ - - r,, .;F - i
i ~ ~ ~ _ P_ ~ ; ~ , ,-,---,EMERGENCY SI I AGENCY SPILLWAY r~~, . = _ ,
1 1 1) I. ' / ~ t ~ CLASS ~ yl.~ CLASS I RIPRAP ~ ss._ ~ ~
I ~ I i.. ~ ' ` EMERGENCY
I.:' r i i ~i i~,.. ~:.I 1~ 1;, 1 ~ ~ . ~ '1~,:~ ~ I ~
r ~ I I ; 1 ~ , ~ SPILLWAY ~ , , . n ,`h a ~i, i, ~ ;`zr- ~ X1;1
1 I 111 i i i11~ 1 A ~ ~ ~i` f. ~ A ~
r I ' ~:1 ~ ~ - '~;1 j ~`~l '1~. . / 1 V. ,1 ~ 'i ,1" ~ ~\A 1 . ~
i ; .
~ l ` ~ ' - . i r i( V n, l ` a` ,
~ 5 1 ~ / I ....1 P~~ i 11 11 - , ~ ,
~~rl, ~ . ~ ' ' ' CLASS B
~ WITH FILTER -,z ~ l~
~ f,. ....P19. ~ a, FABRIC ..P19. „ ~ I.. .i

n
-
CLASS 8
FIGURE 11 WITH FILTER
FABRIC
FEET
0 100 200 300
Date: July 1995
,
~ ar o e u er c N a er oo I I a Ion Project No. R211 DA
I e u ar ~ ar ree I e
Noha~ .~i' ec en ur oun , P o u n o r a ro Ina Drawn B: Geo Gra hics Y ~ P
of Tramportafion