19931000 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19931122

IMPORTANT
Time .>l.J
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA COD NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
?1q9 ?03??"3
N.C. Dept. of Environme Head0rd''Natural Resources
? pawl
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
C l N e 73
Dear Sir or Madam:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
SUBJECT; 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION _
County, COE Project #
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) received a
letter from the Corps of Engineers (COE) stating that your
project qualified for a Nationwide Permit. Please be advised
that the Nationwide Permit is not valid until a 401 Water Quality
Certification has been issued by the Division. General
Certifications have been issue by the Division for most of the
Nationwide Permits, however, several of the General
Certifications require written concurrence from the Division
before the Nationwide Permit is valid.
If you are utilizing Nationwide Permit # 26 and your fill
activity is equal to or less than one-third (1/3) of an acre you
are not required to obtain written concurrence. Otherwise please
complete the attached form (except for conditions 15 and 16) and
send six additional copies (a total of seven copies) so that the
review of your request can be initiated.
If you have any questions, please call me or Mr. John Dorney
at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Eric Galamb
Applic.ltr
cc: DEM Regional Office
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An 1: ual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Y

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 22, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199203483 and Nationwide Permit No. Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
Mr. Tom Tucker
Robert C. Rhein Interests
9101 Southern Pines Boulevard, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Through coordination with Mr. Bill Davis, Yarbrough-Williams & Associates,
we have learned of your plans to fill 40pres of open water area consisting
of a small pond and approximately 870 feet of stream channel at the proposed
Back Creek Subdivision located on an unnamed, headwaters tributary to Back
Creek off Back Creek Church Road east of, Charlotte, 1019MOMg County, North
Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization was
provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided:
a. the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
b. the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. You should contact Mr. John Dorney, NC
Division of Environmental Management at telephone [phone] regarding
notification procedures for a State Water Quality Certification.
r

-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Bill Davis
Yarbrough-Williams & Associates
801 Clanton Road, Suite 110
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A '.
Division of Environmental Management .?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
[D L
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E 0 N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
December 1, 1993
Tom Tucker
Vice President
Rhein interests
4944 Parkway, Plaza Boulevard
Suite 290
Charlotte, N.C. 28217
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Back Creek Subdivision pond
Mecklenburg County
DEM Project # 931000
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 0.17 acres of wetlands or waters which are
tributary to Back Creek for pond development at Back Creek Subdivision
located at SR 2827 in Mecklenburg County as described in your
submittal dated 24 November 1993, we have determined that the proposed
fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2671.
A copy of the General Certification is attached. This Certification
may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
reston Howar, Jr. P.E.
931000.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l0% post-consumer paper

r
iT RR.ESTS
November 24, 1993
Mr. Eric Galamb
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, Nc 27626=0535
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Mecklenburg County, COE Project #199203483
Dear Mr. Galamb:
Your letter to us dated 10/22/92 concerning our Back Creek subdivision indicates that if we are
utilizing Nationwide Permit #26 and the fill activity is less than one-third of an acre, we are not
required to obtain written concurrence. You indicated that the COE shows the area of the pond
to be .38 acre. We are enclosing a copy. of the site plan for the Back Creek subdivision with
the pond site shown, along with a letter from the surveyor verifying that the total size of the
pond is' 0,171 acre, considerably, less than one-third acre.
We would like you to review this information and verify to us that we do not need to obtain
written concurrence from your office. Thank you for your attention to this. request.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT C. RHEIN INTERESTS, INC:
Tom Tucker
Vice President
4944 Parkway Plaza Boulevard • Suite 290 • Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
Yarbrough-Williams & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING
801 CLANTON ROAD SUITE 110 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28217
[phone] FAX [phone]
November 24, 1993
Tom Tucker
Robert C. Rhein Interests, Inc.
4944 Parkway Plaza Boulevard, Suite 290
Charlotte, .North Carolina 28217
RE: Back Creek Pond
Dear Tom:
After field surveying the pond shown on this plan, we calculate it to be 0.171 Acre.
Sincerely,
Bill Davis
BD/ir
(W 3/ozo

LAW
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 26
BALLANTYNE RESIDENTIAL GOLF COMMUNITY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted to:
CRESCENT RESOURCES, INC.
Charlotte, North Carolina
December 3, 1993
8
l ? 5 DEM 1D: o? ACTION ID: J q q ll 0076
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit ft :t 6
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOUR
P.O. Box 29535 [ [?j [ d
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATM: MR. JOHN DO
Telephone [phone] DEC - 61904
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE S TO nGE ERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF.
PLEASE PRINT. W MM; 1. Owners Name: Crescent Resources, Inc.
2. Owners Address: see below
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
Lannie Hopper - Crescent Resources
17405 Jetton Road
Huntersville NC 28078
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Mecklenburg County
Nearest Town or City: Pineville
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): North-east quadrant of the intersection
of NC 521 (South Boulevard) and Providence Road West
(Refer to Figure 1)
6. Name of Closest Stream/River.. McAlpine Creek
7. River Basin:
Catawba
& Is tWs pro, located in a watershed classif a Trout, SA, HQW, ORA WS 1, or WS 117 YES i ] NO V]
9. Have any Section 404 pem du been previously requested W use on this property? YES [ l NO ixi
If yam, explain..
10. Estimated total number of acres of vraters of the U.S., including wetlands, located oA project site., 4.69 acres
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 3.28
Drained:
Flooded
Excavated:
lbtslImpacteds._.?._......_.?, .......,.
1?2. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only): Development of
Residential Golf Community for plans refer to Figure 3.
13. Purpose of proposed work:
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Refer to section 4.0 of supporting document .
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine.Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered orthreatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project Have you done so? YES [x ] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES fix] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE S13PO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy. Development
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Timber, Agriculture, Residential/Commercial
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage
CMUD will provide sewage disposal
services.
Signature
21119a
Date
December 3, 1993
LAW
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Pre-discharge Notification
Ballantyne Residential Golf Community
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Law Environmental Project 55-3605
Action ID # 199400768
Dear Mr. Dorney:
On behalf of our client, Crescent Resources, Inc., Law Environmental, Inc. is pleased to
submit this Pre-discharge Notification (PDN) for Nationwide Permit No. 26 and to request
General 401 Water Quality Certification in accordance with the reissued Nationwide Permit
Program (33 CFR Part 330).
Please contact either Mr. Berry W. Edwards or Dr. Sue A. McCuskey at [phone] if
you have any questions regarding this PDN.
Sincerely,
LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Z
Berry . Edwards
Project Biologist
BWE/SAM:agl
Enclosures - 7 copies
Sue A. McCuskey, Ph.D.
Principal
Environmental Scientist
cc: Colonel George Cajigal - Wilmington District Engineer, USACE
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. Mike Parker - NCDEM, Moresville Field Office
Mr. David Dell - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Janice Nichols - USFWS-Endangered Species Field Office
Mrs. Renee Gledhill-Early - State Historic Preservation Office
LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
112 TOWNPARK DRIVE • KENNESAW, GA 30144
[phone] • FAX [phone]
ONE OF THE LAW COMPANIES
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 26
BALLANTYNE RESIDENTIAL GOLF COMMUNITY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted to:
CRESCENT RESOURCES, INC.
Charlotte, North Carolina
Law Environmental, Inc.
Kennesaw, Georgia
December 3, 1993
Project 55-3605
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. 5
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2
1.1 Site Description ........................................... 2
1.2 Objective ................................................ 3
2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .................................. 4
2.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S ................................ 4
2.2 Protected Species .......................................... 5
2.3 Cultural Resources ......................................... 6
3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ........................................ 7
3.1 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S ..................... 7
3.1.1 Riverine Wetlands .................................. 7
3.1.2 Palustrine Wetlands .................................. 7
3.2 Upland Habitats ........................................... 8
3.3 Protected Species Assessment ................................. 9
3.3.1 Animals ........................................... 9
3.3.2 Plants ............................................ 9
3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................ 11
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................... 12
4.1 Impact Avoidance ......................................... 12
4.2 Wetlands ............................................... 13
4.3 Protected Species ......................................... 14
4.4 Cultural Resources ........................................ 14
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ 15
6.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................... 16
TABLES ........................................................ 18
FIGURES ....................................................... 19
APPENDIX A: THE WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE
BALLANTYNE DEVELOPMENT SITE ................... 20
APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER
QUALITY EAST/WEST CONNECTOR ROADWAY ......... 21
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FLORA
BALLANTYNE EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ............... 22
APPENDIX D: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE
BALLANTYNE PROJECT ............................. 23
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.0 Protected Animal and Plant Species Occurring within Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina and surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina Counties
2.0 Acreage Summary for the Proposed Crescent Resources Ballantyne
Development: Total Jurisdictional Areas, Impact Acreage, and Constructed
Ponds
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.0 Site Location Map
2.A Jurisdictional Waters & Wetlands Map (8 1/2" x 11")
2.13 Jurisdictional Waters & Wetlands Map (Full Size)
3.A Preliminary Master Plan (8 1/2" x 11")
3.B Preliminary Master Plan showing Jurisdictional Waters, Wetlands, Proposed
Impacts, and Natural Areas (Full Size)
v
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Crescent Resources has proposed the development of the Ballantyne Residential Golf
Community on a 717-acre site in southern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
site is located between Providence Road West and McAlpine Creek, south of Charlotte,
NC. Law Environmental has been contracted to coordinate permitting with appropriate
agencies for proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands,
and to survey protected species to support a pre-discharge notification (PDN) for
Nationwide Permit 26 (NWT) and North Carolina State 401 Water Quality Certification.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands within the 717-acre project site
comprise approximately 4.69 acres. The proposed project will impact approximately 3.28
acres of jurisdictional areas. Upon completion of the project, approximately 17.90 acres
of open-water habitat will have been constructed. These constructed areas will provide
storm-water management functions for the project site.
In-house research indicated that eight protected animal species and 17 protected plant
species may potentially occur on-site. Field surveys of the site did not reveal the
presence of these or other protected species within the project boundaries.
A cultural resources assessment was conducted that included a records and literature
search, as well as a preliminary field reconnaissance within the proposed project area.
The cultural resources assessment of the site did not reveal the presence of significant
cultural resources within the project boundaries.
1

z
v
c
z
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Crescent Resources, Inc. is proposing the construction of a residential golf community
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Law Environmental, Inc. has been contracted
to coordinate the permitting associated with proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. and to prepare the regulatory agency submittals for a PDN as required for
NWP 26 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Our site studies included an
assessment of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, a survey for
protected species, and a summary of previously prepared surveys for protected species
and cultural resources.
1.1 Site Description
The location of the proposed Ballantyne Residential Golf Community is consistent with
the southward urbanization of the Charlotte metropolitan area which has been in
progress for several years (Figure 1). The 717-acre project site (Figures 2A,2B) will be
bisected by the realignment and upgrading of North Carolina Highway 521 [NC 521;
NCDOT Project 8.1672403 (R-2242B)] and is located approximately one quarter of a
mile south of the East-West Connector'(NCDOT Project U3103). The project site is
approximately three quarters of a mile south of the I-485 Outerbelt currently under
construction. It is anticipated that the NC 521 East-West Connector intersection will
become a significant business center for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County area. This
is evidenced by the recent acquisition of a 100 acre site by State Farm Insurance near
this intersection.
The proposed project will involve the construction of an 18-hole golf course, driving
range, six ponds, and sewer facilities necessary for the development of approximately
1,000 single family homes (Figures 3A, 3B).
2
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
1.2 Objective
The objective of this document is to provide information to support the NWP 26 PDN
for submittal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and to request North
Carolina Section 401 General Certification concurrence from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Management (NCDEM). This document describes the
following:
• Assessment methodologies for wetland, protected species and cultural
resource studies
• Delineation of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands
• Avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional areas
• Documentation of preliminary Cultural Resources investigation
• Documentation of preliminary threatened and endangered species survey
3
3 ^'
"? ?
0 ?
0 U
r
o ?;
nz
? -?
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Information for this document was compiled from a combination of in-house research
and field investigations. The field investigations by Law Environmental, Inc. included
a delineation of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and a protected
species survey.
2.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 and are protected by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) which is administered and enforced
by the USACE. The location and extent of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were
determined by evaluating in-house resources in combination with field investigations.
In-house research included examination of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute
quadrangle map (Weddington), and the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mecklenburg
County Soil Survey. The jurisdictional boundaries were delineated in the field using the
Routine On-site Method described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. The jurisdictional boundaries were subsequently verified in the field by Mr.
Steve Lund of the USACE Wilmington District. On November 15, 1993, Mr. John
Dorney and Mr. Mike Parker of the NCDEM visited the site to examine the wetland
areas that we are proposing to impact under NWP 26. During this site visit, Messrs.
Dorney and Parker conducted qualitative assessments in selected wetland areas using the
3rd Edition NCDEM Wetlands Rating System. The surveyed plats for the jurisdictional
boundaries were submitted to the Wilmington District USACE for final verification on
November 18, 1993.
4
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
2.2 Protected Species
Protected species are plants and animals classified as threatened or endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources. Species classified as threatened or endangered are protected as specified in
the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 to 1543) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (General Statutes 19b 106:
202.12-22).
On behalf of The Harris Group and Land Design, Inc., several surveys for protected
plant and animal species were conducted by the National Institute for Urban Wildlife,
by Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D., and by James F. Matthews, Ph.D. for some of the
property which was subsequently acquired by Crescent Resources and for the proposed
East-West Connector. The methodology for these surveys may be found in Appendices
A, B, and C respectively.
An in-house literature review was conducted by Law Environmental for protected species
potentially occurring in Mecklenburg County and adjacent counties. This in-house
literature review included the following 'documents:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Southeast United States. Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1991. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Plants of North Carolina.
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element List
On October 26 and 27, 1993, Dr. Haynes E. Currie conducted an on-site field survey to
assess the potential presence of protected species and their potential habitats.
5
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
2.3 Cultural Resources
A preliminary archaeological assessment was conducted by Archaeological Research
Consultants, Inc. in 1992 for portions of the subject site. Their report may be found in
Appendix D.
6
? V
U
? U.
C" V.
Cr
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The field assessments of Crescent Resources' proposed Ballantyne Residential Golf
Community site were conducted during the winter of 1992, and the spring, summer and
fall of 1993. Data obtained during in-house research and field investigations are
presented in the following sections.
3.1 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
The field assessment and delineation of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including
wetlands yielded approximately 3.30 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and 1.39
acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The jurisdictional areas include riverine and palustrine
systems as defined by the USFWS Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Classification System
(Cowardin et al., 1979). Note that all of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including
wetlands within the 717-acre project site are below-the-headwaters systems. The
headwaters determination means that these jurisdictional areas have a mean average
annual flow rate of less than five cubic-feet-per-second (cfs).
3.1.1 Riverine Wetlands
Riverine systems include all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel
(Cowardin et al, 1979). The riverine systems within the project site consist of six
unnamed tributaries of McAlpine Creek (Figures 2A, 2B). According to the USFWS-
Cowardin classification, some of the tributaries are intermittent riverine subsystems
because their channels contain flowing water for only part of the year.
7
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
3.1.2 Palustrine Wetlands
Cowardin defines palustrine wetlands as those dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent
herbaceous species. The palustrine forested wetlands within the project site are limited
to the uppermost origins of the jurisdictional areas. These areas represent isolated "low
elevation seeps" as described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale, Weakley, 1990). In many of these areas there are quite a few wind
damaged trees, presumably from Hurricane Hugo which passed through this area in
1989. The overstory species observed in these areas consist of yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), hickory (Carya sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), hackberry (Celtic
laevigata), American sycamore (Platinus occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The midstory in these wetlands areas consist of
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), American elm (Ulmus americana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The
herbaceous and woody vine layers were usually quite densely populated by Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and
blackberry (Rubus sp. ).
3.2 Upland Habitats
The upland habitats on the site consist primarily of mixed hardwood and pine
communities of various age classes interspersed with some abandoned agricultural fields.
Much of this site was probably historically farmed for cotton as evidenced by the
terracing and the severe erosion of many of the upland slopes. In the drainage basins
mixed hardwood communities were observed. The upland forests exhibit evidence of
high-grading, a silvicultural practice in which only the largest and most desirable trees
are harvested without consideration to future stand composition. This practice usually
results in forests with lower commercial and wildlife values.
8
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
The overstory species observed during our field studies consist of Northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), hickory, white oak (Quercus alba), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), yellow
poplar, black oak (Quercus velutina), and red maple. The common midstory species
observed were hickory, sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
3.3 Protected Species Assessment
Based on our field surveys and the review of the surveys by others, evidence suggests
that federally or state protected plant or animal species presently do not occur on the
project site. The development is not expected to adversely impact protected plant and
animal species.
3.3.1 Animals
The literature search revealed eight federal and/or state endangered animal species
potentially occurring in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina or the counties adjacent
to Mecklenburg County (Table 1). These animals are afforded protection through the
Federal Endangered Species Act as well the regulations of the state of North Carolina.
Suitable habitat within the project area was present for the Carolina darter (Etheostoma
collis) and the mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum). Dr. Menhinick's assessment
of fishes and water quality (see Appendix B) failed to locate any of the aquatic species
listed in Table 1. No evidence of the mole salamander was observed in the course of
our field studies. The only known local recording for this species occurred in Anson
County, North Carolina. This species is found primarily in the southern half of South
Carolina and in western North Carolina according to Amphibians of the Carolinas and
Virginia (Martof, et al, 1980). Suitable habitat for the remaining animal species was not
detected during our investigation.
9
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
3.3.2 Plants
The literature search revealed seventeen federal and/or state protected plants occurring
in Mecklenberg and surrounding North Carolina counties (Table 1). Four of these
species including black-spored quillwort (Isoetes melanospora), Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) are federally listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. Two species, dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Herastylis naniflora) and little
amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillus) are federally threatened species. The remaining
eleven plant species are candidates for federal listing and/or are state protected or
candidates for state protection.
In August of 1993, Dr. James F. Matthews of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte conducted a pedestrian survey for protected plant species along the right-of-
way for the East-West Connector. Dr. Matthews indicated that no federal and/or state
protected plants were observed during the course of his field studies (Appendix Q.
No federal and/or state protected plants were observed during the pedestrian survey on
October 28, 1993 which was conducted by Dr. Haynes E. Currie of Law Environmental.
Potential habitat exists for seven of the federal and/or state protected species. The oak-
hickory woods on site is potential habitat for several of these including Michaux's sumac,
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri), Schweinitz's sunflower, sweet pinesap (Monotropsis
odorata), tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), dwarf-flowering heartleaf, Georgia aster
(Aster georgianus), and Indian olive (Nestronia umbellula). However, none of these
species was observed during pedestrian surveys. Only tall larkspur and Heller's trefoil
which flower from July to September, were considered unidentifiable during the time of
the survey in late October. The remaining species can be identified during late fall
surveys using floral and/or vegetative characteristics.
10
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
The open fields and openings within the forest are marginal habitat for smooth
coneflower and Agalinis (Agalinis auriculata). The optimum habitat for these species is
in glades and open areas over ultramafic rocks and amphibolite. However, according
to the Geologic Map of Charlotte, none of these types of underlying geology occurs
within the project boundaries. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to
impact protected plant species.
3.4 Cultural Resources
Based upon the preliminary archaeological and historic assessment of the project site by
Archaeological Research Consultants, it is believed that no significant cultural resources
presently exist within the project boundaries. Consequently the proposed development
is not expected to adversely impact any known significant cultural resource features or
sites. Refer to Appendix D.
11
C
v? -
CA
z
z-
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The proposed Ballantyne Residential Golf Community development will include an
18-hole golf course, roads and approximately 1,000 lots to be developed for single family
residences (Figures 3A, 3B). Due to grading problems associated with the severity of
the slopes present on the site, the development of the golf course will take place in the
majority of the drainage features. Consequently, approximately 3.28 acres of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands will be impacted under NWP 26 by
the development of the golf course and eleven road crossings within the project
boundaries. Of these 3.28 acres of impact, 1.07 acres are wetlands and 2.21 acres are
jurisdictional waters. Protected species and significant cultural resources are not
anticipated to be impacted by the proposed development.
4.1 Impact Avoidance
During the course of designing the golf course and residential communities, special
emphasis has been placed upon minimizing and avoiding natural areas of significant
value. The severity of the slopes adjacent to many of the jurisdictional areas precludes
preserving all of the perennial and intermittent channels.
Crescent Resources, in the process of planning the layout for residential development,
has located the majority of the roads along ridgetops with the lots falling away from the
roads. During the wetlands assessment by NCDEM personnel, a 0.30 acre area of
wetlands at the northwest corner of the property was determined to be of significant
value (Figure 2B). In response to comments by Mr. John Dorney of the NCDEM,
Crescent Resources has revised their site plans to preserve this wetland area. Where
possible, natural drainage features have been left and will be preserved to achieve
several objectives. First, these natural drainages will be preserved in an effort to avoid
12
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
unnecessary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., secondly, these drainages will
serve as natural buffers between homeowners.
Crescent Resources has tried to incorporate as many natural areas of preservation as
possible into the community design. Approximately 5.0 miles of nature trails and 21.05
acres of natural areas will provide for numerous greenspace areas (Figures 3A, 3B).
Best Management Practices will be implemented during construction of the project to
avoid detrimental impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands and to
prevent degradation of water quality. Intensive erosion control will be provided
throughout the project area in accordance with Mecklenburg County sediment and
erosion control regulations. Erosion control measures will include erosion control
around water outlets and inlets, construction of temporary diversion dikes, and
reinforced silt fencing. During the golf course construction phase of the site
development, the six proposed ponds will be utilized as temporary sediment detention
basins as well as storm water abatement structures. Conventional erosion control
measures such as grassing, hay bales, and diversion ditching will be used in conjunction
with the measures described above to minimize erosion.
4.2 Wetlands
In the initial planning stages of the golf course, it was determined to be impractical to
locate the fairways outside of the natural drainage corridors and still have enough usable
land for single family residential development. As previously stated, it was also
determined that it would be too costly to construct a golf course adjacent to the streams
using cut and fill grading techniques. Additionally, bulkheading was not a viable option.
Consequently, the decision was made to locate the golf course in the small on-site
drainages and to utilize a series of ponds to replace the anticipated aquatic habitat loss.
During the qualitative assessment by Messrs. John Domey and Mike Parker of the
13
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
December 3, 1993
NCDEM, a 0.30 acre area was identified as significant, subsequently the designs have
been revised to allow for the preservation of this area. The project as proposed would
impact 2.21 acres of jurisdictional waters, but would create 17.90 acres of open water
habitat on site. Therefore, the project will result in an eight-fold increase in acreage of
surface waters.
4.3 Protected Species
Based on our field and literature surveys, the evidence suggests that federally or state
protected plant and animal species presently do not occur within the project site. The
proposed residential golf community development is not expected to adversely impact
protected plant and animal species.
4.4 Cultural Resources
The literature and records search, and preliminary field reconnaissance indicated that
no significant cultural resources are likely to exist on the project area. The proposed
development is not expected to adversely impact any known significant cultural resource
features or sites.
14
n
O
Z
n
r
C
O
z
CA

Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Crescent Resources-Ballantyne Residential Golf Community will impact
1.07 acres of wetlands and 2.21 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the 717-
acre site. Impacts of up to ten acres of below-the-headwaters streams can be permitted
under Nationwide Permit No. 26. No impacts to wetlands within the McAlpine Creek
floodplain will occur as a result of this project. The proposed development is not
expected to impact endangered animal species, endangered plant species, or significant
cultural resources. The project will yield approximately 17.9 acres of open water habitat
with the construction of the six ponds. Crescent Resources will preserve 0.32 acres of
wetlands in response to comments by NCDEM personnel.
This development has been planned to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional
areas to the extent practicable in accordance with the 404 b(1) guidelines of the Clean
Water Act. Further, the proposed losses of jurisdictional waters have been off-set by
creation of other open-water habitat. Consequently, Crescent Resources respectfully
requests concurrence that the Ballantyne Residential Golf Community has met the
conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 26.
15

n r
H
c?
c
t?
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report December 3, 1993
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS - 79/31. 131 pp.
Environmental laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 100 pp. plus appendices.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical
publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Goldsmith, R., Milton,D., Horton,W. 1988. Geologic Map of Charlotte (1 degree X 2
degree) Quadrangle.
Martof, B.S., Palmer, W.M., Bailey, J.R., Harrison, J.R., Dermid, J. 1980. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, N.C. 264 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element List.
Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E., Bell, C.R. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 1183 pp.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88(26.2). 124 pp.
Sabine, B.J. (Ed.). 1992. National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands, Region
2 - Southeast. Resource Management Group, Grand Haven, MI. 122 pp.
Schafale and Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. 325 pp.
U.S.D.A. 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 97 pp. plus map.
16
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
December 3, 1993
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeast United States. Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.
Weakley, Alan. 1991. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. 69 pp.
17
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
TABLES
December 3, 1993
18
C d
a)
a Q

5
? cc
z
Z CO)
}
ca = as
cj Q ti

Z
rn
U co a? rn
co
?-- c c Q

U >+ cn
O U a
c 'O ?.
D.
r O O >

o m cn
CZ
> c
cli C 3
.

_ ?QN00
O ? _ -p ?_
•? ??
1 4)
=
_
fA L U) c
a)
A o
0
?
C
4) O? CI U Q
4- Cl) C O

Y O > M
ca
a)
O
O

ev
0 , U
C fl CM -0 Z
0 0 ?_
.
c>s a) ca

-0 m

c
-C
c ? vi- Q
a o c
a) O N
>. c75
fn O
m
-? aoocc C =cE C E 0. V
3 i cn ? O O co
%- 0 Co U> Co
t
V IL Q O O u- E O c in 0
r

R
O *'' a

N ~ c v m
V N co 0
4)
0 4)
vd?o
EM
ca °
?LN
N °' ,
w?'c-VNN
? ? ? ii II
c +
'
?
N II II 11
m
.o o ?o n
LU U)
RU Z 3
Q
Eo

z
'
m_ ?
c
Q m =
CL = E t

:a
4) r ...

°

?

0 a)E

E -a
_
z r a
Co
o ca
Z

Z N o° Q ?
cu

E
E
t

*'
,
?

`° `o
M U)
Co
w
Q co
3.
J
as
It
0)
CO
ca
C

, c
.2 y R r
Lu
d 4) v Q a) W ? p y II II II
m CIO
U) 2 ca
W? O
c a ?Q LL"
JE WHU
's3
c ca
= o
L
z z
° 1° ? 'o
U Q a

O p C L
Z

E Y

o
0) ca

)
?Z' 03
a
cts °U c ° cz o
c d

c
o

a N

N o
cn

3
a) :3 :3 c

ai ??U °Z%
J p c co .C U? 7
_ a

.0o
v mm
>
ca ??

") co go-0cac
c cis
-0
(1)
O
c 4 o°C
Ca
-5 CC (
0
a) M
m e -0
U c ca CL .
o U o c 0 m
Z
° c
4) 0

V m
L

a °

1 U C.c N

U
n'iY N
rL-- c
° °-ic a
'C -p >
?.

C
Co c cm
O-0 ? 0 Z? ?
Z U L
° o
C N C N U U co
E J•o
3
C1
r
•? [LS •V c
'i ttf c
:3
° cn U _0 U i t
0 U)3: LL cV Y-0-04a) 0 0 co
U ICU
Z
c
C
d H
i d
0
V
O *-f
cc = 40
N
U
C
U ?
U N
0)
0
cc
aNi ? V cc
N c
4)i o
N is *
'- ai Cl) °) ca
CL
N
o 0
U
U '0
?
aa'
d
?
cc
*., c
ca 4) 4-
IL N 41 d
+• cc
c t N?
LU
c N II II
m ca
S d m
N II II II
p WF-VNN
cca C) 3

m
E o
Co
z U^
c N U v)
ca t
H
Q C1
c 'ca
o U
a U.
•••
co a
i
-jo o
N N
°

?
0) 0

a?
E

mc°i

G

?'`.
C

NR

zi
0
° Z
z v 't cry
E O
a ? Cc
M
a N rn
CA o
-0
Co O cis
*- W c O = M O ?` `'
'C d W E- V

v

N 75
?
?..
ctS

?
? ctS
.0, ?
II II II
U) li U W Q U (L .J 3
?
W F- V

V
c
ca eo
c y
_ Z Z Z

o ° •? .o
U Q a`
r _
cu

c o

Z
m0 ca a)
c0
o
Z
:3 n -
c c C
o
«f 0
U L .O
?a)
cc? a a

?
V _ U Co cc C L

T Co .- - L M
L-
CO
Z
C
(
(1) >
J- O is
a _ O O N CO LL N N
0) c a) i
c N E c >, c0 3 vi c U)
V c d c cd 0 (D
-0 O w e O
a) ° a -5).q; ?: .- 3 c cc
U) 0 U) c
c(a oo a)?v,?cc$0) o 0
° MU 3 o NULL.
m ca a?
A=! V
r -C

(D O .
(D r
CD
.C
o w w
CIS
V J ?Z 0LU?ZU? C3
c Z
•? C
• * d' G1
0
v
cc y3,
++
LLI
F-
c
d cc
V
cv
DU NN
a O+ C
L 4) V

d o
N
c0 K
N C
I... '0 L
c
?
a
N ??
+.
c
LL! W v a?
c
c(D
c L?
V CL

c cc
LPL V)
d +? ._
LC V N N
cc cv N ?m'
? II II 11 11 II
a
O N
° U oC
WI- CNN
?Cc 3

0
E a)
z
co =3
E co
o
c a) ? o
CD r
D O
d 0
.. L
E
ai a o C
co
d d o
L7d
•c

L

dN

Z v

N
J

C
O

''..' ti
p
@

o

*'
a" _

R V
'p m e
r N G
UJ
N
c CO .

1 'C N

~
CO)
v

LU H V

4)

4)

n E

L cisCL

:3 2 Z

g -Y.

c Q)
.o°
4)

II II II
B CL
V/? 2 -
?
co
UJ U) a m o
? 0
20 LL.
w1-r,

c
w
cc
O
L
ea
U
r
0
Z
a
c
O
U
C
C
J?d
0 C
a) 0
?U
C
U)
rn0
cU
m
c
0
O
U
_) 3
.0 0
C. N
C
c
la m
a
C Cc
ca U
_r
E0
a?
a?
}, c
+?+ 0
L
aL W
r
.n
ea
H
C
O
L
++ d Q
cc
Q O
= a`
a
a
L
L
d
N
L
a
O } }
Z
Cn 0)
0
Q
O
c )
o
vi O
CD Co c

W
Co Q
Z'
a)
A-- Ca
4- Y

C 1-
Q E V

CS
0 O
O ?-
Cc$
O
E a) aL

U a) N w
QN-, C
m
-c a 0a ?
C w rnM
c C
cn c cn C
-'c C
0 0 m a? 0
Co LL C3 00 u.
a F- w
N ;a
N
4 3
U?
d
w Z.
Z
4
C
CL
Ny

O
Z
0
CL
O
U
O
a)
c
W
(3
N
a)
}
Cn
C
L
«s
U
.a
C
CO
cn
.a
O
O
0
U w U
U U U U
la

a) a)

CCu
a)
0?
,
a
`D
o °)
i a
)
-0,0 -O
a) Cts 0
a)o
a c a)c
? a)
cts
= 0 O ? ,2
I
a) aXi 'I Co
ca
C?
UV
?=
wQ

y
Z3 C_
o
c
L M _
Co O Z a)
cam
r ?a L- 0)
?
L Cl)
0
C L CO)
()
a
i y
C')Q cL a) a) O
E
L
o)
O
L
a
d
rn
t°
'L
aJ
R
ea
c
0
?a
t
0
Z
c
0
Md
1i
V
4) ?
oa
d N
3
c
t
H
ML
vs
15 4)
J *L
a)
d ?
d V d O C
L d ,,, U cc
CIS -
C 4) ,0
c) •C
v 0 c o, o)
W?VN(1)
II II II II 11
LU (1) I)
dd
C
CM ?
cc
?c
c H U
WHU
V (0
C C d
cc a-
4)4 cn
C Z Z Z 4) Z Z
ev '
c _ > O
U Qa
r
O
Z N
L L.
c
o a L o a o U) _0 E
C)- c co
m cn
o :3 w m > o
d O O - L -C
a) =3
L
a) ca -?e cn
G Q p n cn 0 O
a C;) ?U 4- (n o° cc$ C j
C o o a) ? u, O
+C+ d U i ) cn a) N
C
C N C O- C
s
.?+ Y cis :3 ciCL a-
V O ? C'3 O ?° C7
•?
(D C4
O N ? W W H
U N
d
0) 0 CL U)
N N
U I- W W U U
N
cv
C cc W N
a?
C ?
cc U
_ C
ca r -
E O
CZ -? L a
m cu
Q -?
C ZZ 3 C
C ?. cn co U O m >+ O
c>s
C C U U
crs c1Y
N O N C
co C
Z3 m t 42 75
C i ? Z cis )
m co ?? co
a rA Z > •T Q c p U .y z to m
w o Q U
N O E ? E c N O u
I;z IZ 2 co co
N .O V
m co tv C U_ _ m O ?. p
N y -C cn cn =. U)
E
is
L
O
L
a
a>'
rn
L
d
L
O
L.
U
L
O
Z

L (Q
O
•? rJ
'C •p O
4) c
4) c d*O'U
0)4)-0
`? ?
_
ai
V •
? 'O V •C
•d 4) 4)
Cr ?NVN
O
?.. WHU
II II
N N II II II
a W F-UNN
3
'3
C
ca
t
N
U.
N ?
4) C
d Oa1 -0
.C c v ;p
r0 C t CCc

L
10 4)
W U
N II II II
N
J? WF- U
'?
C
ca ea
C d

C ,.
+d Q

z

En

Z

L = >
c
0
v Qa

O
Z ?E

c
CD ca
o
o
o
cS

rn = E _0 ??
a 'c
C 'o
L ca °
3 c
O
a) C L N
>
O
cn cn O
co
c
U C
0 d
L
4- O
? 00)
o O)
°' cn
) CL _0
aa)
C cA -O O
-
O
as
C
C O 0
_ 0 O co
c ? 0
a
) CL Cn
E
O
C1 O Q X U m
C V
•L C
-
0
0 Co
v
w
U
w
U
OV N a
en

O
N
•0
i H
.
-0 .+ w U U U
C ca IL y

aS
,

C
?

z
a
C M
ca

o
a
.?

,

cts
V O
0 o d
E O'S Q
0
co c M
a? 0.-
3c

O •-
C N
w Z
Z
c
? o
cn

?
C
a Yr c cfj c o '
-NC ?
T
O

O t

) C _
Co a)
o 0)
(
N

V
my
U
W O

U ?
- N
~? o
i
U
E
?o
L
O
L
a
d
v?
c
'L
d
?a
cc
z
c
o
L.
c4
V
t
O
Z

L Cc
oc
o
o
L
li
cc
4) C Cc
v cQ V C

N 'a t-carn
V N N
(D W
II 11
*'
wN II 11 II
o WF-VNN
3

c

r

i?
ch 'O
D
d1 1 d
?
?
eca C
C cc
. c
C
o L. w
I- V
0
c II II II
y
,,
H
J * W F- ()
Table 2: Acreage Summary for the Proposed Crescent Resources Ballantyne
Development: Total Jurisdictional Areas, Impact Acreage, and
Constructed Ponds
Description Acreage
Total Site 717.0
Jurisdictional Areas
Unnamed tributaries of McAlpine Creek 3.30
Palustrine Wetlands* 1.39
Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Total impacts to tributaries 2.21
Total impacted wetlands 1.07
Total Constructed Ponds 17.90
*The Palustrine wetlands match the description for Piedmont-Low Elevation seeps
(Shafale and Weakley, 1990).
These values were obtained from the wetlands survey by GPA, Inc. and using a
Numonics Corporation Electronic Planimeter Model 1224-1.
61
saiinoI3
£66T `£ iagtuaao(j taodag luuid - uopeagpoN aBmgos?p-aid - a Amullug
/?//' `, •r,? •?•,•\ • i??? ?? ? ?:'???\ ? ? ?\`??•'., \ I. \? -'ate ???
550
o? y? o L)
596
0 \ /1?
'10 i
?: ???,> 'i ?,?t?????? p ? ? ice. 1 `1?:?., '\ ? ???
I 1 JAS\?
? "-' _-- -0? _??_ \ ??yq_ r'•. "? -- ?. _ ?' - 1. ' -- - ,??,A ly I
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: U.S.G.S 7.5-MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP 0 2000 4000
WEDDINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 1988
BALLANTYN E LAW
RESIDENTIAL/GOLF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE LOCATION MAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY INC. --
NORTH CAROLINA JOB NO. 55-3605 FIGURE 1
DATE: 11-3-93 PREPARED BY: MDT CHECKED BY: BWE
^m
co s
C ,
n Z ? gm? ? R`. t
OOM
z?
z D as1
_ m
t r.t,
O -z-i a s
n t
m a 'l
w z m\ \ S s m? ?% I;
r
z 1 t 1•
• V
W
g •.
r ?
z ` `?-
O
w z- _ J
.'.
r
o rn C?1
o > ? p s
4 ,
-n ic
70 Z p
D = ?? - ?? 1 r -"-
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
December 3, 1993
APPENDIX A
THE WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE BALLANTYNE DEVELOPMENT SITE
20
THE WILDLIFE RESOURCES
OF THE BALLAN TYN E DEVELOPMENT SITE
Prepared by.
National Institute for Urban Wildlife
10921 Trotting Ridge Way
Columbia, Maryland 21044
Under Contract to:
The Harris Group
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 1, 1993
WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE BALLANTYNE DEVELOPMENT SITE
This report is a presentation of the results of a preliminary site investigation of the wildlife resources of
the Bailantyne site performed by staff of the National Institute for Urban Wildlife (NIUW) under contract
with The Harris Group. The purpose of the study is to provide a description and evaluation of the general
wildlife habitats ( i.e. plant communities) currently existing on the propertv that will be useful to the site
development planners, as well as public agencies which may review the development plans. This study was
not intended to produce a comprehensive inventory of wildlife species or populations, because it was not
wnsidered wimari for the purpmse stated above.
The main components of this report include:'a vegetative cover (habitat) map of the site delineating
general plant communities, a discussion of the likelihood of rare or endangered species occurring on site, a
description of each habitat, conclusions and recommendations, and a listing by habitat of vertebrate species
that may occur on the site. It is beyond the scope of this study to quantify the impact of the planned
development on the various existing habitats because the plans are only at the conceptual stage at this time.
However, the report can provide a basis for such analyses later, and some specific recommendations for
minimizing the loss of habitat are presented.
It should be noted that jurisdictional streams and wetlands were delineated and described by others in a
separate report. Wetlands are treated in this report as either features of larger habitats or separate
habitats, and boundaries shown on the habitat map do not necessarily correspond to jurisdictional
boundaries.
Study Methods
The information presented in this report was gathered using three methods: field observations during an
intensive site visit, conversations with State officials, and pertinent literature reviews. The investigator
was William Bridgeland, wildlife biologist and research associate of NIUW. Mr. Bridgeland discussed the
details of the investigation with Dr. Lowell Adams, Vice President of NIUW, who also reviewed the report.
Professional qualifications of both individuals are included in an appendix to this report.
Field Observations: Mr. Bridgeland spent three days during the week of February 8, 1993 walking over
the entire property while noting habitat characteristics. A particular effort was made to identify any
relatively undisturbed, unusual (e.g. uncommon soils or geology), or otherwise sensitive habitat which
would increase the likelihood of threatened or endangered species. Data recorded included dominant plant
species, tree size and condition, canopy closure, evidence of human activity (e.g. recent logging,
pasturage), predominance of exotic or invasive plants, special habitat features (e.g. vernal pools, rock
outcroppings), and sightings of animals or their tracks and other sign. These data form the basis of the
habitat descriptions given in this report.
A topographic map (1 "= 400') and a recent color aerial photograph (1 "=300') of the site were used for
orientation and planning walking routes to sample all major habitats. The aerial photogragh, in
particular, was very useful for delineating the habitat boundaries shown on the habitat map.
State Officials: As the principal agency concerned with fish and wildlife in the state, staff of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission were consulted, as well as the N. C. Division of Parks and
Recreation, before the field visit was made to inform them of the study and discuss their major concerns.
These conversations provided the basis for the discussion of rare and endangered species below, and helped
direct the field study to address agency concerns.
2
Literature Review: Because the study site Is immediately south of the Charlotte Outer Loop and bisected by
the proposed relocation of US 521, the environmental assessment reports for both of those projects
contain information pertinent to the site. These documents were obtained from NC Department of
Transportation and reviewed. The vertebrate species list was derived from the list in the US 521 report,
and general background information was gathered from both documents. Full titles of these reports are
given in the References list for this report, along with other references used.
General Site Descr intion
The Ballantyne Site is approximately 1800 acres located in southern Mecklenburg County, NC, on which
an extensive residential/commercial development is currently being planned by the Harris Group. It is
roughly bounded on the west by US 521, the south and east by Provident Road West, and the north by the
Charlotte Outer Loop (under construction). Most of the site is forest in all stages of succession with
patches of hardwoods, mixed conifers and hardwoods, and a few pine plantations. In general, the slopes of
the drainages are dominated by hardwoods, and the flatter uplands are dominated by pines. Much of the
mature pines have been recently logged (selectively cut). The remainder of the site is active and
abandoned farm fields and pasture. -
Three perennial and two intermittent streams, which are small tributaries to McAlpine Creek, run
northward and drain the majority of the site. Existing wetlands are all associated with these drainages, and
include seeps, swamps, small marshes, floodplains, and three small artificial ponds. Topograghy is typical
of the piedmont, with elevations ranging from 530 to 680 feet.
There are no paved roads, but several dirt and gravel roads, and logging trails traverse the site. A high
tension power line right-of-way cuts east to west through the property, and another runs northward from
r the center. These rights-of-way appeario be regularly mowed.
Rare Threatened. and Endangered Species
The Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and Recreation has no record of any State or Federal
listed species in this part of the county, and none was observed in the course of this study. However, due to
the time of year and duration of this field work, it is not possible to make definitive statements about the
absence of threatened or endangered species. In addition, several rare species have been recorded from
southern Mecklenburg County that typically occur in habitat types present in the study area. These
Include three plants and one fish, listed below with legal status indicated.
Schweinitz's Sunflower ( Helianthysxhweinitz/h: Federal and State Endangered
Helier's Trefoil ( Lotushelk,,rh: State Candidate for Listing
Georgia Aster (Asterpeorgianz): Federal and State Candidate for Listing
Carolina Darter ( E7haxlom8 callis): State Species of Special Concern
Of these species, only the Schweinitz's sunflower is currently legally protected. However, cooperation
with the State to conserve the others is strongly encouraged. The three plants all typically occur in dry
upland wood openings, old fields, pastures and thickets (Radford, et a). 1968), and such habitats are
common on the study site. Heller's trefoil blooms in late summer, and the other flowers bloom In the fall;
appropriate habitats should be investigated at these times to determine if they are present.
The Carolina darter is a small fish that occurs in piedmont streams less than 15 feet wide, and can be
considered likely to inhabit streams of the study site. According to the US 521 Environmental
3
Assessment, this fish can tolerate a broad range of water quality and streambank vegetation types, but
could be adversely affected by construction of stream crossings byroads and utilities. Best management
practices to control sedimentation and turbidity during and after construction would become especially
important if this fish is found on site. it is recommended that the streams be checked for the presence of
this fish by a fisheries biologist familiar with the species and its habits.
If anv of these species are found on the site, a conservation plan should be developed in coordination with
appropriate state officials.
Wildlife Habitat Descriptions
The term "habitat" has many levels of meaning to a wildlife biologist depending on whether the context Is a
particular organism, a population of one species, or a community of many species. For the purposes of
this report, which is considering all wildlife in the study area, habitat is defined broadly and is
synonymous with vegetative cover type, or plant community. It is widely recognized that many plants and
animals commonly associate in communities that may be categorized by gross characteristics of the
vegetative structure. These communities are the "habitats" described below. However, Nature rarely
organizes itself quite so neatly, and there are many plants and animals that do not recognize community
boundaries. Nevertheless, these categories do serve the purpose of providing visual images of the biotic
landscape to other biologists familiar with the region, from which they can infer unwritten details and
species associations based on their own experiences.
As a further characterization of the habitats, a list of vertebrate species that could potentially occur on
site by habitat category is provided as an appendix of this report. It is derived from a list of species which
recorded in Mecklenburg County. Undoubtedly, all of these animals do not actually occur on the site, but
the list is useful for comparing the potential utility of each habitat to wildlife in general.
Five major habitat categories were identified on the Ballantyne site based on information gathered during
the field survey, and these are described below and shown on the habitat map. The existing habitats are all
disturbed by past human activity to some degree, and are typical of areas with similar land use history in
the region.
1. Aquatic Habitat
This habitat category includes the permanent streams and ponds. The streams on site are small (S -10
feet bank. to bank) upper perennial streams with sand and gravel, or occasionally bedrock beds. The upper
reaches of some of these streams become intermittent within the study area. The channels are deeply
incised with steep, unvegetated banks in most cases, probably resulting from past periods of deforested
watersheds. These streams provide habitat for certain amphibians, small fish and aquatic invertebrates as
well as terrestrial species which feed on them and otherwise benefit from the water.
The three ponds are ail situated well above the perennial streams on the landscape, and provide aquatic
habitat for additional wildlife species including various water birds, turtles, snakes, larger frogs, and
salamanders. No fish were observed in these ponds, but the possibility that one or all of them have been
stocked still exists.
2. Open Field
This category includes all upland areas dominated by herbaceous plants, such as pastures, old fields, the
4
power line right-of-way, and roadsides. Many of these areas include scattered stands of redceder
( Junioeris vir4iniand). The largest single parcel of this habitat is an active horse pasture in the west
central section of the site. This pasture is dominated by mixed grasses and unpalatable plants such as
thistles ( Carduus spp.) and multiflora rose ( Rosemultil7ora). The power line right-of-way has been
periodically mowed, and is therefore dominated by grasses and perennial herbs including broomsedge
( Andropow spp. ), oatgrass ( Danlhonla spp. ), panic grass ( Penlemm spp.), horseweed (,FriXron
canade17si.0, bush-clover ( LP.sped?k°a spp. ), goldenrod (.fWid&v spp. ), and aster ( Aster spp. ). Most of
the remaining areas have been undisturbed for a longer time, and are in transition to dominance by woody
species such as blackberry ( Rubus spp.), greenbrier ( Smilexrotundifoliq), honeysuckle ( Lon1wra
japonica), winged sumac ( Rhuscopalliv), trumpet vine ( Campsisradicans), redcedar, and saplings of
trees including sweetgum ( LiquidYmbarsty1, illua), Virginia pine ( Pinus virpinian . black cherry
( Prcmusserotma), and various oaks ( Ouercus spp.) mixed with the herbaceous species listed above.
3. Mixed Forest
This is the largest single habitat-category on the site, and covers most of the flatter uplandsnot in Habitat
2. The mixed forest Is a transitianal association of conifers and hardwoods which, given time, would
become a hardwood stand. Because It includes species from early and later successional stages, the mixed
forest is the most diverse habitat on site. In many areas the mixed forest gradually becomes hardwood
forest (Habitat 4.) as one moves downslope toward the drainages.
A large percentage of this forest has recently (within three years) been selectively logged for the mature
loblolly pines ( Pinus tam which dominated. The loggers left widely spaced pines standing as seed trees,
as well as many of the sapling to pole sized hardwoods which had been in the understory. Due to the open
canopy, there is vigorous growth of weedy herbs, vines, shrubs, and tree seedlings.
Parts of this habitat that have not been logged include decadent stands of Virginia pine or pitch pine
( Pinusri,gW with hardwoods gaining dominance, and overgrown old fields with mature redcedars sharing
dominance with hardwoods.
Other species occurring commonly in the mixed forest include dogwood ( CornusfloridA, black cherry,
sweetgum, tulip poplar ( LiNexthdron tulipifere), red maple (Acerruhrum), southern red oak ( Ouercus
falcaN, white oak ( 0 elbal, black oak ( 0 velutin,q), willow oak ( 0 phello., sourwood ( Oxy*ndron
ar,ooreum), hickory ( Carya spp.), blackberry, greenbrier, honeysuckle, horseweed, and broomsedge.
4. Upland Hardwood Forest
The majority of this habitat occurs along the steeper slopes surrounding the drainages that have remained
undisturbed for a longer time due to their unsuitability for agriculture. Along the larger streams with
significant floodpiains, this forest grades into bottomland hardwoods (Habitat 5.). Much of this area was
impacted to a variable degree by hurricane Hugo, which opened the canopy by as much as 50% from wind
damage to the largest trees. Wind damage was generally greatest on east-facing slopes. The increased
sunlight resulting from the canopy openings, along with the soil disturbance from overturned root maser
has allowed opportunistic exotics such as honeysuckle to flourish in many places, undoubtedly to the
detriment of some native forest plants.
Dominant canopy trees vary in size among the stands included in this category from 8-10 inches dbh
(diameter at breast height) to 20- 30 inches dbh. The most extensive mature upland hardwood stand is in
the southwest quadrant of the site. This area is the least disturbed, has the largest trees, the lowest
frequency of exotic plants, and relatively minor wind damage compared to other parts of the site. This
section is large enough to potentially harbor forest interior dwelling species of plants and animals.
5
Dominant plants in this habitat category include white oak, black oak, southern red oak, tulip poplar,
sweetgum, white ash ( fraxinusemericanus), hickories, American beech ( fwusgnen0ifolid), sourwood,
flowering dogwood, Amer)can holly ( IlexopXd), strawberry-bush ( fuo17ymuse1ne1'1canu4, honeysuckle,
heart leaf ( Hexeslylis spp.), and Christmas fern ( Polystichum wrostichoidO.
S. Bottom land Hardwood Forest
The stressful conditions resulting from saturated or flooded soils during the growing season can be
tolerated by relatively few plant species with special adaptations. These species dominate along the
floodplains of the larger streams on site, and in seeps or depressions. This habitat category includes areas
ranging from seldom flooded or saturated sites, to one swamp that was flooded with more than a foot of
water in places during the field visit. All of the palustrine forested wetlands described in the separate
wetland report are included in this habitat.
The majority of this habitat occurs-along the northern boundary in the floodplains of Niven's and McAlpine
Creeks. The flooded swamp covers several acres along the lower reaches of the larger stream on the
western half of the site. This swamp is dominated by species most tolerant of flooding including black
willow (Salixnigre), green ash ( fnaxinaspennsylvanica), red maple, and buttonbush ( apAalenthus
crx:?v?nta/is?.
Other specles common in this category include sweetgum, willow oak, water oak ( ouere-asnigra),
hackberry ( altis laevigatA, American elm ( Ulmusamericelv), river birch ( Betalenigra), sycamore
( Platams ci~rh*17talis), black gum ( AyssasylvaliW, box-eider (A4tv1,nsgt1A0, and tulip poplar. The
herb and shrub layers of these areas are often well developed and include greenbrier, multifiora rose,
common privet ( Lipustram07en.%), honeysuckle, grapevine ( Vift spp.), wild garlic (Allium spp.), and
chickweed ( arestium spp.).
ions and Recommendation
The following recommendations are aimed at minimizing the impact of the development of Ballantyne on the
wildlife populations that presently exist on the site, and those that will likely occur after the development
has been completed. It should be recognized that development of this scale will inevitably destroy some
habitat and profoundly alter much of the rest. Many individual plants and animals will certainly die as a
direct result of this. Some species of wildlife that live there now may disappear from the site altogether,
others may be greatly reduced in number.
Assuming that there are no rare or endangered species present, and that the wetlands will remain intact,
the next most valuable habitat that exists on this site is the mature hardwood forest in the southwest
quadrant of the property. This habitat is valuable due to its regional rarity, size, and complexity. It
probably contains forest interior plant and animal species that can live in no other habitat, and are
declining regionally (Adams and Dove; Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission). Its integrity depends on
maintaining a continuous tree canopy, and an undisturbed understory. Merely reducing its acreage beyond
a certain point may render it uninhabitable to some animals. Opening clearings within it will allow alien
plants to become established which can out compete native wildflowers, and eliminate habitat components
necessarv for certain birds and other small animals O bid). As mentioned above. all of these effects will
occur to some degree as the land is developed, but by responsibly implementing the recommendations
given below, these effects can be limited, and a valuable asset may be retained in the process.
Land Use Planning Recommendations:
6
+ Due to the value of the mature hardwood forest described above, land use requiring tree and undergrowth
clearing within this habitat should be minimized.
• Residential development in the forested sites should take place with minimal tree clearing. All site plans
could be subject to approval of a professional silviculturalist to assure adequate protection of trees to
remain during construction. Set back requirements may need to be increased for some lots bordering the
steep slopes. In addition, covenants should require natural Iandscaping and encourage leaving the natural
understory intact. Lot size might even be reduced in exchange for increasing adjacent open space, which
would become common area for exclusive use by the landowners for low-impact recreational use.
• Layout of development should maintain corridors of natural vegetation connecting undeveloped forested
areas wherever feasible.
• During construction, best management practice for erosion control should be required and strictly
enforced. Handling and disposal of hazardous materials should also be strictly controlled.
• Auto and pedestrian bridges should cross streams etas near to 90' as practicable, and should be of
sufficient span and height to minimize impact on bottomland and provide passage for animals.
Management Recommendations;
+ Designate all open space as a wildlife sanctuary wherein plants and animals are protected, Nature study
is considered a major use, and all management practices must not negatively impact wildlife.
• Encourage native vegetation to become established; use native species for landscape plantings.
• Areas to remain unforested should be maintained as meadows instead of lawns. Mowing needs only to
occur once a year in March or April.
• Architectural details should not provide pigeon roosts or starling and sparrow nest sites.
Plans should be routinely reviewed by an urban wildlife biologist. r
• Minimize conflict with potential nuisance wildlife bj requiring secure trash containers, screens on
chimneys, high quality vent covers with heavy screens, and energy-efficient construction to eliminate
cracks around eaves, foundations, and wall joints.
• Nest boxes should be sited by a wildlife manager for bluebirds, screech owls, squirrels, wood duck, etc.
In appropriate open space.
• Public feeding of any waterfowl that appear on impoundments should be discouraged.
e Instal I a system of unpaved nature trails designed to encourage leisurely study while carefully avoiding
erodable slopes and sensitive plants.
Public Relations:
• Apply for certification as an Urban Wildlife Sanctuary officially recognized by NIUW. Material
explaining the Urban Wildlife Sanctuary Program is included with this report.
• Produce a brochure that explains how and why wildlife is being protected at Ballantyne as an important
asset to the overall environmental quality. Specific rationale for policies that may seem restrictive should
be spelled out clearly.
+ Develop and publicize a network of readily available information about wildlife for residents of
Ballantyne. This might include lists of plant and animal species present in the community, natural history
accounts of common species, landscaping hints for attracting wildlife, how to manage undesirable wildlife,
or any other topic of interest. A special file for this purpose could be maintained at the local library,
which would include a list of resources such as local professional and amateur naturalists, and regional
field guides and other relevant literature. Perhaps an interested resident or a conservation committee of
the homeowners association could maintain this network and act as liason between other residents and
outside experts.
REFERENCES
Adams, Lowell W. and Louise E. Dove 1989. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment,
National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, MD 91 pp.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, State of Maryland 1986. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest
Interior Dwelling Birds In the Critical Area. Guidance Paper No. 1. 15 pp.
Godfrey, Michael A. 1980. A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide - The Piedmont. Sierra Club Books, San
Francisco 500 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation 1981. 1-77 - US 74 Connector Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Project R-211 -
North Carolina Department of Transportation 1990. US 521 Relocation Environmental Assessment; TIP
No. R-2242
Peterson, R. T. and M. McKenny 1968. A Field Guide to Wildflowers. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston
420 pp.
Petr Ides, George A. 1972. A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 428 pp.
'Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Miles and C. Ritchie Bell 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill 1183 pp.
8
APPENDIX 1. POTENTIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES BY HABITAT
The following list is derived from a list of species which have been recorded in Mecklenburg County.
Species were listed if they are expected to commonly breed or forage in the respective habitats.
Habitat Codes: (see text for details)
1. Aquatic
2. Open Field
3. Mixed Forest
4. Upland Hardwood Forest
S. Bottom land Hardwood Forest
9
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HABI TAT CODE
SPECIES (' - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5

FISH
American eel x
Ros side dace x
Eastern silver minnow x
S ottall shiner x
Swallowtail shiner x
Creek chub x
Creek chubsucker x
Striped um rock x
Mar ined madtom x
Mos uitofish X
Redbreast sunfish x
Blue ill - X
Redear sunfish x
Largemouth bass x
Carolina darter x
Tesselated darter x

AMPHIBIANS
Northern cricket. fro x X
Green fro x X
Bullfrog X X
S rin peeper X X X X X
"U land chorus fro x X X X X
Southern leopard fro x X
Gray treefro x X X
Pickerel fro x X X
Red-spotted newt x X X
Marbled salamander x X
Northern red salamander x
Northern duskv salamander x X
Eastern mud salamander X
Dunn's spring salamander x X
Slim salamander X X
Spotted salamander x X X
Southern two-lined salamander x X
Eastern narrow-mouthed toad x X
Fowler's toad x X X X X
American toad x X X X X

REPTILES
Painted turtle x X
Eastern box turtle x X X X
Snapping turtle x X
Stinkpot x X
Eastern mud turtle x X
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HAB ITAT CODE
SPECIES (' - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5
Five-lined skink x X
*Green anole x X
Northern fence lizard x X
Ground skink x X
Broad headed skink x X
Six-lined racerunner x
Slender lass lizard x X X
Black rat snake x X X X
Eastern kin snake x X X X
Eastern garter snake X X
Eastern ribbon snake X X
Northern water snake x X
Midland water snake x X
Ojeen snake x X
Eastern smooth earth snake - X X X
Northern red-bellied snake x X
Northern brown snake X X
Eastern ho nose snake x X X
Eastern worm snake X X X
Southern rin neck snake x X X X
Rough green snake x X X X
Northern black racer x X
Corn snake x X X
Northern scarlet snake x X
Scarlet kin snake x X X
Mole snake x X X
Southeastern crowned snake x X X X
Northern copperhead x X
Carolina pygmy rattlesnake X
Timber rattlesnake x X

MAMMALS
*Opossum x X X X
Southeastern shrew X X X X
Least shrew X
*Short-tailed shrew x X X X
*Eastern mole X X X X
Little brown m otis X X X X
Keen m otis x X X
Silver-haired bat x X X X
Eastern i istrelie x X X X
Big brown bat. X X X X
Red bat x X X X
Seminole bat. X X X X
Hoar bat. X X X X
Evening bat x X X X
Rafines ue's big-eared bat x X X X
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HAB ITAT CODE
SPECIES t" - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5
His id cotton rat x
White-footed mouse x X X X
House mouse x
*Meadow vole x
*Pine vole x
Harvest mouse X
Golden mouse x
Muskrat x X
Norway rat x X
Meadow lumping mouse x
*Gray squirrel x X X
Fox squirrel x X
Southern fl in squirrel x X X
*Eastern cottontail - X
*Raccoon x X X X X
Striped skunk x
*Gray fox x X X
Lon -talled weasel x X X
*Whitetail Deer x X X X

BIRDS
Great Blue Heron x X
Green Heron x X
Mallard x - X
Canada goose x X
Wood Duck x X X
Hooded Mer anser x X
Turkey Vulture x X X X
*Black Vulture x X X X
Sharp-shinned Hawk x X X X
Coo er's Hawk x X X X
*Red-tailed Hawk x X X X
*American Kestrel x X
Bobwhite X
Rock Dove X
*Mourning Dove x X X X
Yellow-billed Cuckoo x X X
Spotted Sandier X
Killdeer x X
American woodcock x X
Barn owl x
Eastern screech owl x X X
Great Horned Owl x X X X
Barred owl x X
Chuck-will's-widow x X X
Whip-poor-will x X X
Chimney Swift. X
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HABI TAT CODE
SPECIES (* - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5
Ruby-throated Hummingbird x X X X
"Belted Kin fisher x X
Pileated Woodpecker x X X
"Common Flicker x X X X
"Red-bellied Woodpecker x X X
Red-headed Woodpecker x X X
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker x X X
"Hair Woodpecker X X X
"Down Woodpecker x X X
Eastern Kln bird X
"Eastern Phoebe x X X
Acadian Flycatcher x X X
Eastern Wood Pewee x X X
Great crested fl catcher x X X
Purple martin - X X
Tree swallow X X
Rou h-win ed swallow x X
Bank swallow x X
Cliff swallow x
Barn swallow x
"Blue Ala x X X X X
"Common Crow x X X X X
Fi h crow x X
"Carolina Chickadee x X X X
"Tufted Titmouse x x x
Red-breasted nuthatch x X
White-breasted nuthatch x X X
Brown-headed nuthatch x
Brown Creeper x X X
House Wren x X X X
Winter Wren x X
"Carolina Wren x X X X
*Mockingbird X
Gray Catbird X
"Brown Thrasher X
"American Robin x X X X
Wood Thrush x X X
"Hermit Thrush x X X
Swainson's Thrush x X X
Veer X X X
Eastern Bluebird x X
Blue- ra Gnatcatcher x X X
"Golden-crowned Kin let x X X X
Ruby-crowned Kin let X X X X
Cedar Waxwin v X
Starlin X X X X
White-eyed Vireo X X X
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HAB ITAT CODE
SPECIES t" - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5
Red-eyed Vireo x X X
*Solitary vireo x X X
Prothonotary Warbler x X
Northern Parula x X X
Yellow Warbler X
Blue-win ed warbler x X
Tennessee Warbler x X X
Orange-crowned warbler x X X
Chestnut-sided warbler X X
Ma nolia Warbler x X X
Black-throated green warbler x X X
Cape May Warbler x X X X
Yellow-throated Warbler X X X
Black-throated Blue Warbler - X X X
Pine Warbler - X X X
Prairie warbler x
Palm warbler x X
Kentucky warbler x X
Hooded warbler X
Black and White Warbler x X X
Ovenbird x X X
Northern Waterthrush x X
Louisiana waterthrush x X
Common Yellowthrost X X
American Redstart X X X
Yellow-breasted Chat. X X
*Yellow-rum ed Warbler x X X
Bobolink X
Eastern Meadowlark X
Red-win ed Blackbird x X X
*Common Grackle X X X
Northern oriole X X X
Orchard oriole x X
Brown-headed Cowbird x X
Scarlet Tana er x X X
Summer tanager x X
*Cardinal x X X X
Rose-breasted Grosbeak x X X
Blue Grosbeak x X
Indigo Bunting x X
House Finch x X
*American Goldfinch X
*Rufous-sided Towhee x X
Savannah Sparrow X
* Dark-e ed Junco x X X
Chi in Sparrow x X
*Field Sparrow X
LIST OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE WILDLIFE SPECIES BY HABITAT
HAB ITAT CODE
SPECIES (" - Observed) 1 2 3 4 5
Purple Finch x X X
Pine Siskin X
White-crowned Sparrow X
*White-throated Sparrow x X X X
*Fox Sparrow X
Vesper Sparrow X
*Swam Sparrow X
*Son Sparrow x X
Houses arrow x

Total Vertebrate Species 60 117 138 121 139
• '' ? ' r , y •• fl('IC t`rl..?/n' '? ?' : III I? ??? E ?,?.:+.?.
0 O
f R , !Vt/ ? . .. : 1 , r...i?.(( • \.. OFD I, `
J 4/ y y
ire
i !/.? r r \ Iii; ?..?/J \{ i ?, -. ? ? ?• . N. _
( IT F ?: r ;sue , i
? '?r .. III ' ? S r ?,`-•y '4? .
?-
._?? 45"•F1 ? . _
J: 00
r
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
December 3, 1993
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER QUALITY
EAST/WEST CONNECTOR ROADWAY
21
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER QUALITY
EAST/WEST CONNECTOR ROADWAY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for Land Design Engineering Services, Inc
by
Edward F. Menhinick
Professor of Biology
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
3 September, 1993
STREAM STUDIES
This report summarizes the environmental assessment of fishes and water quality for the East/West
Connector Roadway for the proposed Ballantyne subdivision, Mecklenburg county, North Carolina,
which will consist of a 16,800 foot connector passing from Lancaster Drive east to Elm Lane.
This first part of the report describes the characteristics of the streams which the proposed road will
cross, their water quality, and the organisms that were collected from them. Streams of the area were
sampled on August 28 and 29, 1993. Stream discharge was calculated according to Embody's
formula. The Wentworth grain size was used for inorganic sediments. Water analysis follows the
EPA manual 625/6-74-003a, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes". Turbidity was
measured with a Hach 2100A turbidimeter; conductivity was measured with a YSI Model 33/S-C-T
meter; pH was measured with a Chemtrex Type 40E pH meter; oxygen was measured with a YSI
Model 58 oxygen meter. BOD was determined with the YSI meter with dilutions based on EPA
specifications. Fishes were collected with a Smithroot Type VIII Electrofisher. Fish nomenclature
and arrangement follow the American Fishery Society Special Publication Number 20. In the listing,
the common name of each fish is given, followed by the number of individuals collected given in
parenthesis.
Creek A. The most westerly creek, designated Creek A, was sampled where it passes through the
area of the proposed connector road, 0.5 miles west of the electrical substation, 2.1 mi SSE of
Pineville (Fig. 1).. From there it flows 0.4 miles NNE from the road to its juncture with McAlpine
Creek Creek, 0.4 airline miles the connector. The 150 m floodplain was unusually wide for the small
stream present. The floodplain contained an abandoned field to the east and a lowland forest
dominated by sycamore, beech, locust, river birch, sweet gum and ash; there was an understory of
ragweed, blackberry, grasses and herbs. The unchannelized bank had a height of 140 cm, an angle of
60°, and a channel width of 150 cm. It was about 80% vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation
plus an understory of grasses, honeysuckle, mosses, Aneimela spiderwort and arrowhead. About
10% of the stream received direct sunlight. The stream consisted of about 90% pools. Average stream
width was about 50 cm; discharge was 1.1 liters per second. There was a moderate blockage from
sticks and logs; there was no bed load. Bottom type varied from sand to gravel; stiller areas contained
fine sand covered with silt and an organic floc. DO was 7.3 ppm; BOD was 1.3 ppm; conductivity
was 88 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom; turbidity was 11 NTU; temperature was 22°C;
pH was 7.1; and alkalinity was 50 ppm. Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area
was about 54 m2. Most species occurred in a few larger pools which were up to 50 cm deep. There
was no visible sign of pollution. The following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (8), bluehead
chub (21), creek chub (7), creek chubsucker (2), mosquitofish (4), redbreast sunfish (6), and bluegill
(2). Also taken were one Cambarits crayfish and a frog tadpole (Rana sp); deer tracks were present
in one area. In summary, this stream had an unusually high fish diversity for a stream of such low
discharge.
Creek B. The small creek located 0.3 mi E of the road to the substation contained no water and was
1
not sampled.
Creek C1. Creek C1 was located about 0.1 miles east of a gravel road, 2.5 miles SE of Pineville, and
flowed WSW to its juncture with McAlpine Creek Creek. The floodplain was indistinct and contained
a forest dominated by poplar, red maple, sweet gum, ash, dogwood, pine, and river birch with an
understory of ferns, virginia creeper and grasses. The unchannelized bank had a height of 180 cm, an
angle of 70°, and a channel width of 170 cm. It was about 80% vegetated and contained floodplain
vegetation plus grasses, mosses and ferns. Only about 5% of the stream received direct sunlight. The
stream consisted of about 70% pools. Stream width was 53 cm; discharge was 1.7 liters per second.
There was a moderate blockage from logs, and there was no bed load. Bottom type varied from gravel
in riffles to fine sand covered with a silty organic floc in pools; there was occasional bedrock. DO was
8.0 ppm; BOD was 0.8 ppm; conductivity was 90 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom;
turbidity was only 5.3 NTU, an unusually low value; temperature was 21°C; pH was 7.3; and
alkalinity was 50 ppm. There was no visible sign of pollution. Approximately 100 m of stream were
sampled; sampling area was about 50 m2. Most species occurred in pool areas . The following fishes
were collected: rosyside dace (17), creek chub (16),and redbreast sunfish (11). Also taken were one
Cambarus crayfish and one Procambarics crayfish. In summary, this stream contained unusually
clear water, and normal fish populations for a stream of its size and characteristics.
Creek C2. Creek C2 was located 0.3 miles east of the dirt road, near the end of a recently constructed
sewer line, 2.7 SE of Pineville. It flowed in a WSW direction to join creek Cl and then flowed to its
junction with McAlpine Creek Creek, 1.5 miles from the connector road. The 20 m floodplain
contained a forest dominated by poplar, beech, dogwood, sweet gum, and ash; there was a ground
cover of ferns, virginia creeper, Lycopodium (ground cedar), and mixed herbs. The unchannelized
bank had a height of 180 cm, an angle of 70°, and a channel width of 130 cm. It was about 90%
vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation, cardinal flower, grasses, mosses, and ferns. Only
about 10% of the stream received direct sunlight. The channel consisted of about 50% pools. Stream
width averaged 50 cm; discharge was only 1.7 liters per second and was interrupted in some areas.
There was a heavy blockage from sticks and logs. There was no bed load. Bottom type varied from
medium to coarse sand with a silty organic floc in most areas. DO was 8.6 ppm; BOD was 1.0 ppm;
conductivity was 82 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom; turbidity was only 12 NTU;
temperature was 21°C; pH was 7.4; and alkalinity was 48 ppm. Approximately 100 m of stream were
sampled; sampling area was about of about 50 m2. Most species occurred in pool areas . There was
no visible sign of pollution. The following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (8), creek chub (53),
and mosquitofish (1). Also taken was one Cambarcrs crayfish, and a Rana tadpole; two frogs
(Rana sphenocephala?) was seen. In summary, water chemistry and fishes of this stream were
similar to stream Cl; and were typical of a woodland stream of its size and characteristics.
Creek D1. Creek D1 was located just west of a recently constructed sewer line which served a
nearby subdivision, and paralleled it. It was about 0.3 miles east of Elm Lane and 2.8 miles SE of
Pineville. It flowed in an westerly direction to join creek C2 and then flowed to its junction with
McAlpine Creek. The indistinct floodplain was approximately 200 m wide and was dominated by
2
poplar, walnut, sweet gum, river birch, and sumac; there was a ground cover of grapevine and yellow
root. The channelized bank had a height of 200 cm, an angle of 80°, and a channel width of 100 cm.
It was about 40% vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation plus grasses and privet. Only about
10% of the stream received direct sunlight. The channel consisted of about 5% stagnant pools; there
was no discharge. There was a heavy blockage of sticks and logs. Bottom type varied from cobbles
to silt with a silty organic floc. DO was only 1.0 ppm; BOD was unusually high: 7.0 ppm;
conductivity was 150 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom; turbidity was only 13 NTU;
temperature was 21°C; pH was 7.1; and alkalinity was 66 ppm. No fishes were present in the stagnant
pools. In summary, Creek D 1 was an intermittent stream that consisted of stagnant pools containing
no fishes; it probably dries up during dryer times of the year.
Creek D2. Creek D2 was located 0.2 miles west of Elm Lane; it flowed in a westerly direction
paralleling and just south of the proposed connector road and joined creek D1. The indistinct
floodplain contained a forest dominated by sweet gum, pine, cedar, dogwood, and poplar with an
understory of grasses. The channelized bank had a height of 180 cm, an angle of 70°, and a channel
width of 100 cm. It was about 50% vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation, grasses and herbs.
Only about 10% of the stream received direct sunlight. The channel had a moderate blockage of sticks
and logs. Bottom type was of boulders to silt with occasional bedrock. There was no water in the
channel and consequently water analysis and fish surveys were not made.
McAlpine Creek. Because all of the creeks affected by the proposed road eventually enter McAlpine
Creek, this creek was sampled near the influence of the recipient streams, 2.1 mi SE of Pineville. The
well-developed floodplain was about 400 meters wide and contained box elder, river birch, sycamore,
and poplar. There was a dense understory of pepper grass, mixed herbs, privet and ragweed. A log
jam just above the collecting site backed the creek for hundreds of meters, and caused it to flow out
over the floodplain on the northern side where it formed an extensive swamp continuing cattails,
arrowhead and other emergent herbs. The channelized bank had a height of 190 cm, an angle of 80°,
and a channel width of 1400 cm. It was about 90% vegetated and contained floodplain trees plus
pepper grass, ragweed, cardinal flower, a large yellow composite, and grasses. About 50% of the
stream received direct sunlight. Average stream width was about 800 cm; discharge was 210 Usec.The
channel consisted of about 90% pools. There was a moderate blockage of large trees, probably a
result of Hurricane Hugo. Bottom type was mostly mud. DO was only 3.5 ppm; BOD was 2.0 ppm;
conductivity was 186 umho; Secchi visibility was approximately 100 cm; turbidity was 17 NTU;
temperature was 23°C; pH was 7.2; and alkalinity was 67 ppm. The main sign of pollution was heavy
siltation and low dissolved oxygen. Several different species of fishes were taken: carp (3), bluehead
chub (6), greenfin shiner (4), spottail shiner (26), creek chubsucker (2), mosquitofish (7), flat
bullhead (1), white catfish (1), redbreast sunfish (30), bluegill (1), hybrid sunfish (bluegill x
pumpkinseed?) (2), largemouth bass (1), tessellated darter (1). The white catfish had only only 12 gill
rakers, a very low number. In addition, a leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) with unusually small
black spots was taken. Three mollusks were collected: the shell of the mussel Elliptio raveneli,
Asiatic clams, and a Physella hendersoni snail. In summary, McAlpine Creek was a relatively large
heavily silted creek with low dissolved oxygen and an unusually large diversity of fishes.
3
COMMENTS ON SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE STUDY AREA
Two species of mollusks of special concern occur in Mecklenburg county. The Carolina heel splitter,
L.asmigona decorata, a nearly oval 2.5-3.0 inch mussel with reduced pseudocardinal teeth, has been
collected from silty areas near or under the banks of Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union
County, and from the Lynches River in Lancaster County, South Carolina. The Carolina elktoe,
Alasmidonta robu.sta, is known only from five specimens taken from Long Creek (near McDowell
Creek) around 1981. It has not been collected since from any stream and is considered extinct. One
shell of the mussel Elliptio raveneli was found in McAlpine creek. No exposed siphons of mussels
were seen in silty areas where they would be expected to be visible, and no mussels were collected by
feeling in silty areas near or under banks. Asiatic clams, Corbiccrla fluminea, were common in
McAlpine creek. One specimen of a Physella hendersoni snail was also taken from McAlpine
Creek.
Thirty-six species of fishes have been reported over the last 30 years from southeastern Mecklenburg
county. This is about 15% less than the number of species occurring in similar sized drainages of the
lower Piedmont of North Carolina and indicates long term pollution of the area, both from sewage
effluent and from agricultural siltation. Fourteen of these species were collected in this study, most
from McAlpine Creek. In the annotated listing which follows, the terms "abundant", "common",
"uncommon", and "rare" have been used to indicate abundance. "Abundant" means that the species
has been found in at least 50% of the collections of southeastern Mecklenburg county, "common"
refers to 20-50% of the collections, "uncommon" to 10-20% of the collections, and "rare" to less than
10%. The terms "possibly" has been used if the species has not been reported from the stream but
might be expected to occur there based upon proximity in neighboring areas. The terms "creeks",
"streams", and "rivers" have been used to designate approximate sizes of streams. "Creeks" refer to
smaller streams, "streams" to medium sized streams, and "rivers" to larger streams.
One species of fish of special status occurs in the area, but was not collected in this study. Because of
its relative rarity and limited distribution, the Carolina darter, Etheostoma collis, is listed as "special
concern" by the state. It occurs in pool areas of small lowland agricultural streams, in weedy
backwater areas of small streams, and in gravelly areas of Rocky River, a medium-sized polluted
stream. The listing of fish species from Catawba drainages of southeastern Mecklenburg county, their
relative abundance, habitat preference, and relative sensitivity to pollution follows.
Clupeidae - herrings
Gizzard shad. Dorosoina cepedianum (Lesueur). The gizzard shad occurs commonly in slow
velocity areas of rivers and streams, and in lakes of the area. This plankton-feeder is an important
forage species when small; when mature, it is too large for a forage fish and competes with
immature game species for plankton. The gizzard shad is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution
and is subject to mass mortalities, usually in the winter, from unknown causes. This species was
4
not collected in this study.
Esocidae - pikes
Redfin pickerel. Esox americanus Gmelin. The redfin pickerel is uncommon in clear, slow
flowing creeks and streams of the area. This is an excellent little game fish; its flesh is bony but
sweet and of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was not
collected in this study.
Cyprinidae - minnows and carps
Rosyside dace. Clinostomus finiduloides Girard. The rosyside dace is abundant in headwater
creeks of the area. Where abundant it may be an important forage fish. It is intermediate in
sensitivity to pollution. This species was collected in all three streams crossing the connector road.
Greenfin shiner. Cyprinella chloristia (Jordan & Brayton). The greenfin shiner is abundant in
streams of the area; it is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was taken from McAlpine
Creek.
Whitefin shiner Cyprinella nivea (Cope). The whitefin shiner is uncommon in streams of the
area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Carp. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus. The carp is rare in sluggish streams and rivers of the area.
This species is a native of Asia where it is highly prized as a food fish; in this country; however, it
is regarded as a rough fish and is seldom eaten. The flesh is easily tainted by polluted water. Its
habit of stirring up bottom sediments in search for food often makes it an undesirable species. The
carp is highly resistant to pollution. It was taken from McAlpine Creek.
Silvery minnow. Hybognathus regius (Agassiz). The silvery minnow is uncommon in sluggish
streams of the area. Where abundant, this species may be an important forage fish. It appears to
be sensitive to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Bluehead chub. Nocomis leptocephalcts (Girard). The bluehead chub is abundant in streams
and creeks of the area. Its gravel nests are also used as spawning sites for other fishes. This
important forage fish is highly resistant to pollution. This species was taken in two streams in the
area.
Golden shiner. Notemigonus crysolecicas (Mitchill). The golden shiner occurs commonly in
streams and creeks of the area. The young are important forage fish and are one of our commoner
bait minnows; the adults are often undesirable because they eat the fry of game fishes. The golden
shiner is resistant to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
5
Highfin shiner. Notropis altipinnis (Cope). The highfin shiner is abundant in creeks of the
area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Greenhead shiner. Notropis chlorocephalus (Cope). The greenhead shiner occurs uncommonly
in streams and creeks of the area. This is an important forage fish where abundant. It is
intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Dusky shiner. Notropis cummingsae Myers. The dusky shiner is rare in clear streams of slow
to moderate velocity. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was not collected in
this study.
Spottail shiner. Notropis hudsonius (Clinton). The spottail shiner is abundant in streams and
rivers of the area. This is an important forage fish for large stream species. It is moderately
resistant to pollution. It was taken from McAlpine Creek.
Swallowtail shiner. Notropis procne (Cope). The swallowtail shiner is abundant in streams and
less numerous in rivers of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species was
not collected in this study.
Sandbar shiner. Notropis scepticus (Jordan & Gilbert). The sandbar shiner is uncommon in the
swifter portions of streams in the area. It is sensitive to pollution. This species was not collected
in this study.
Creek chub. Semotilcts atromaculatus (Mitchill). The creek chub is abundant in creeks and
streams of the area. This important forage fish is resistant to pollution. It was taken from all
streams crossing the connector road.
Catostomidae - suckers
White sucker. Catostoincts commersoni (Lacepede). The white sucker is common in the pool
areas of streams and creeks of the area. This coarse food fish is resistant to pollution. It was not
collected in this study.
Creek chubsucker. Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill). The creek chub sucker occurs commonly in
slower moving creeks and streams of the area. It spawns in clear swift creeks with sand-gravel
bottoms in early spring. The young are important forage fishes in acid coastal waters. The flesh is
bony but firm and flavorful when taken from cold water, becoming soft and less flavorful from
warm water. The adults eat the eggs of other fishes. The creek chubsucker is resistant to
pollution. It was taken from two streams in this study.
Smallfin redhorse. Moxostoma robustum (Cope). The smallfin redhorse is uncommon in
streams of the area. This coarse food fish is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was
not collected in this study.
6
Striped jumprock. Moxostoma rupiscartes Jordan & Jenkins. The striped jump rock occurs
uncommonly in streams and rarely in creeks of the area. This species is too small for a food fish.
It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Ictaluridae - catfishes
White catfish. Ameiurtts catus (Linnaeus). The white catfish occurs commonly in rivers of the
area. This night-feeder is primarily taken by trot lines and traps; the flesh is good. It is resistant to
pollution. It was taken from McAlpine Creek.
Black bullhead. Ameittrus melas (Rafinesque). The black bullhead occurs uncommonly in
pool areas of smaller often muddy streams of the area. This species is uncommon in North
Carolina. Because the flesh is tainted when taken from muddy waters, it is seldom eaten. It is
resistant to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Brown bullhead. Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur). The brown bullhead occurs commonly in
rivers and streams of the area. This species is readily caught by cane pole fishermen using worms,
cut bait, or dough balls; the flesh is very tasty when taken from unpolluted waters. It is resistant to
pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Flat bullhead. Ameiurus platycephalus (Girard). The flat bullhead is common in slower rivers
and streams with mud and sand bottoms. Until recently it has been lumped with the snail bullhead,
and consequently its range poorly known. Its flesh is good. It is probably moderately resistant to
pollution. It was taken from McAlpine Creek.
Channel catfish. ktaletrus punctatus (Rafinesque). The channel catfish is rare in rivers and
streams of the area. This fish is a favorite of many anglers: it is a daytime feeder, a good fighter,
and has delicious flesh if taken from clean waters. It is resistant to pollution. This species was not
collected in this study.
Margined madtom. Noturus insignis (Richardson). The margined madtom is uncommon in
streams and rare in creeks of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This species
was not collected in this study.
Poeciliidae - live bearers
Mosquitofish. Gambttsia holbrooki Girard. The mosquitofrsh has been reported as abundant in
still, often weedy areas of streams and creeks. Where abundant this may be an important forage
fish due largely to its high reproductive potential. It is often introduced into ponds and lakes for
mosquito control. It is highly resistant to pollution. This species was taken form two streams in
this study.
7
Centrarchidae - sunfishes
Redbreast sunfish. Lepomis auritiis (Linnaeus). The redbreast sunfish is abundant in slower
moving sections of streams and creeks of the area. This important game fish has excellent flesh
and is a good forage species for largemouth bass. It is resistant to pollution. This species was
collected from all but one stream in this study.
Green sunfish. Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque. The green sunfish is uncommon in sluggish
streams of the area. This game fish is of little importance because of its small size. It tends to
over-populate restricted waters. It is resistant to pollution. This species was not collected in this
study.
Pumpkinseed. Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus). The pumpkinseed occurs abundantly in the pool
areas of streams and creeks; it particularly prefers weedy areas. This attractive game fish is too
small to be important for human consumption but it does provide forage for largemouth bass. As
with most other sunfish, overreproduction often results in stunting. It is intermediate in sensitivity
to pollution. A hybrid of this species was was collected form McAlpine Creek.
Warmouth. Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier). The warmouth is abundant in streams and rivers of the
area. Although its flesh is excellent, this game fish is not a favorite sports fish. It is resistant to
pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Bluegill. Lepomis macrochinis Rafinesque. The bluegill is abundant in slower moving parts of
streams and rivers of the area. This is our most important game fish along with the largemouth
bass: it is a relatively large sunfish, is a favorite of cane pole and fly fishermen, is an excellent
fighter, and has sweet and flavorful flesh. It is also an important forage fish for largemouth bass.
The bluegill is resistant to pollution. It was taken from two streams in this study.
Redear sunfish. Lepomis microlophus (Gunther). The redear sunfish has been introduced from
Mississippi drainage streams into farm ponds of the area and occurs uncommonly in streams. This
is a good game fish which readily takes natural baits, but which seldom strikes flies or spinners. It
is moderately resistant to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Largemouth bass. Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede). The largemouth bass is common in
rivers and streams of the area. This is our most important inland game fish along with the bluegill;
it is an excellent game fish and the flesh is excellent. It is moderately resistant to pollution. It was
taken from McAlpine Creek.
Percidae - perches
Carolina darter. Etheostoma collis (Hubbs & Cannon). The Carolina darter is uncommon in
8
creeks of the area. This elusive little darter apparently prefers shallow backwater areas of streams
which often contain vegetation. It has been found in shallow riffles, however. It appears to be
resistant to pollution. This species was not collected in this study.
Tessellated darter. Etheostoma olmstedi Storer. The tessellated darter is common in the riffle
areas of streams and creeks in the area. It is resistant to pollution. It was taken from McAlpine
Creek.
9
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Siltation. The major pollutant of McAlpine Creek is a heavy amount of siltation. Such siltation harms
streams by covering areas where food chain organisms live, by covering fish eggs, by covering
habitats tinder rocks, and by filling pool areas, one of the most important habitats of fishes. Most of
this siltation probably comes from agricultural development and road and building construction in the
drainage area. Constriction of the proposed road will undoubtedly create temporary siltation. Once
the road is completed, disturbed areas are seeded, and a good ground cover of vegetation is
established, associated siltation should be minimal. Because McAlpine Creek is already heavily silted,
additional siltation from a well-planned project should have only moderate short time effects, and
probably no long term effects. However, because of their small size, siltation of the smaller branches
will undoubtedly have a temporary harmful effect, and it is important that steps be undertaken to
reduce potential siltation by carefully regulating construction activities, by utilizing siltation trapping
ponds and other erosion control structures where appropriate, and by seeding exposed areas as soon as
possible. It would also be advantageous, if possible, to schedule most construction during the
summer or early fall because runoff is minimal at this time, and this is a period of rapid growth of
protective vegetation. Most of the fishes in the streams that would be affected by road construction are
quite common, are relatively resistant to siltation, and are able to recolonize disturbed areas once
siltation is reduced.
Turbidity. Turbidity refers to suspended material in water which blocks sunlight, and thus reduces
photosynthesis. This suspended material settles out in slower areas and adds to the silt load which
covers bottom fish food organisms and buries fish eggs. Turbidity was very low (below 11 NTU) in
streams crossing the connector road. As with siltation, most turbidity originates as a result of .
vegetation removal associated with land use and should be dealt with in the same manner as siltation.
Conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of dissolved ions that conduct electricity, primarily sodium
chloride from waste water treatment discharge and calcium bicarbonate from agricultural runoff.
Conductivity was normal (between 70-120 gmhos) for all creeks crossing the connector road except in
the stagnant pools of stream D2 where it was 150 gmhos. It was very high (186 gmhos) in McAlpine
Creek! Proposed construction should not adversely affect conductivity.
Dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen was near air saturation values in all but one stream crossing
the connector primarily because of low levels of BOD wastes, and because the shallowness of the
streams assured good air exchange. However, McAlpine Creek was low (3.5 ppm), and the stagnant
waters of D 1 (1.0 ppm) was critically low. Construction activities would not normally affect dissolved
oxygen.
Organic pollution. Biochemical oxygen demand was unusually low (less than 1.0 ppm) in most
streams crossing the proposed connector. It was 2.0 ppm in Mcalpine creek and 7.0 ppm in D1! BOD
wastes result in low levels of dissolved oxygen as they decompose. Resultant low dissolved oxygen
is often a serious problem below overtaxed wastewater treatment plants. High BOD is often associated
10
with a disagreeable odor associated with anaerobic decomposition; only the most resistant fishes can
survive in recipient streams.
Toxic wastes. Based on chemical analyses and fish populations, there was no evidence of toxic
wastes in the study area. Care should be taken during construction to assure that gasolines, oils and
lubricants not enter the streams.
Eutrophication. Excessive amount of phosphates and nitrates may result in undesirable algal blooms
in certain streams or reservoirs with limited turnover. However, eutrophication was not a problem in
streams of the study area, and construction of the proposed road should present no problems of
eutrophication.
Increased runoff. Judging from the height of debris in overhanging branches, McAlpine Creek
receives large amounts of runoff from urban and residential sources. The small tributaries crossing the
interceptor cant' relatively little runoff because much of the drainage area is wooded. Construction of
the road will probably result in only a slight increase in runoff, and once areas have a good grass
cover, it should return to near normal levels. Runoff should be minimized by clearing only areas
immediately needed and by seeding bare areas as soon as possible so that vegetation may be
reestablished.
Debris. Care should be taken to assure the proper disposal of debris resulting from clearing and
construction.
Fishery resources. Sunfishes were common in the area. However, the specimens collected in this
study were stunted and were too small to be considered a fishery resource. Construction of the
proposed road will probably have little direct effects on fishery resources.
Endangered species. None of the three species of special status - the Carolina darter, the Carolina
elkhorn, and the Carolina heelsplitter - were collected in this study. Satisfactory habitat for the
Carolina darter does occur in Stream A, and extensive collecting of this stream might establish the
presence of this species in the area. It is very unlikely that it occurs in any of the other streams in the
area of the connector room.
Project alternatives. The nature of the streams affected by construction of the road is similar for
several hundred feet above and below the proposed location of the road, and it could be moved north
or south with little additional effect on the streams.
Mitigation measures. Most effects of the project should occur only during and shortly after
construction. Once construction is completed and vegetation is restored, the streams should return to
near preconstruction conditions.
Improvement of waters. Construction and use of of the road will not improve the water quality of
11
the streams.
Conclusion. In conclusion, construction of the connector road will probably result in increased
siltation during construction. This problem can be greatly reduced if siltation prevention measures are
taken. There should be relatively few problems once construction is completed and disturbed areas are
stabilized. Increased runoff should ultimately be only slightly greater than is presently occurring once
the disturbed areas return to a natural vegetation. With satisfactory environmental safeguards and
proper monitoring, construction and use of the road should have no serious long term environmental
consequences. I therefore recommend that the project be approved and the construction begin as soon
as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
?- ' ?- 7V
Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
12
0
? a
ti
7
yT
4
M
N
u
w
J
4
tt
w
d
Z
O
d
v
v
W
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
APPENDIX C
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FLORA
BALLANTYNE EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
December 3, 1993
22
Environmental Assessment - Fiora
Ballantyne East-west Connector
August 1993
Prepared for Land Design Engineering Services
by
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at charlotte
2
Environmental. Assessment
Ballantyne East-West Connector
Flora
This study was undertaken to satisfy the guidelines for
environmental assessments regarding endangered flora. During
the field work the vegetation was examined to identify the
type of communities and the dominant species, however an
exhaustive list of trees was not part of the project. An
indication of the age of the forest is provided by a statement
on the dbh of the major trees along with an indication of the
type of succession for each different cover.type. No attempt
has been made to classify the community types according to the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
the standard for naming community types, because most of the
communities are in open fields, have been timbered or are in
an early/medium state of succession. The major thrust of
the field work was to search for the occurrence of
endangered, threatened or species of concern which may occur
along the proposed 100 ft. right-of-way for the road. This
was accomplished by walking the staked right-of-way, with
excursions beyond the cleared portion, and an examination of
some of the least disturbed woodlands.
3
The species searched for during the field work were:
1. Georgia aster, Aster georaianus. A species of open oak-pine
flatwoods, which occurs in extensively in western Union Co.
and from one population in northern Mecklenburg Co.
2. Piedmont aster, Aster commixtus. A species of hardwood
slopes and £loodplains, known from the Four Mile Creek
drainage basin.
3. Smooth coneflower, Echinacea laeviaaata. A species of
meadows and woodlands, and reported from Mecklenburg Co.
4. Heller's rabbit tobacco, Gnaphalium helleri var. helleri.
A species of open woods and woodland borders, with scattered
reports in Mecklenburg Co.
5. Schweinitz's sunflower, Helianthus schweinitzii. A
species of open fields and woodland borders occuring
extensively in western Union Co. and northern Mecklenburg Co.
6. Carolina birdfoot trefoil, Lotus helleri. A species
found in dry woods and clearings, with scattered reports in
Mecklenburg Co.
7. Nestronia, Nestronia umbellula. A species of mixed
hardwood/pine woods, with scattered reports in Mecklenburg Co.
8. Southeastern bold goldenrod, SolidaQo ri4ida ssp. Qlabarata.
A species with a historical collection in Mecklenburg Co.
Many of the above are fall blooming species and could
occur in the habitats present in the proposed project. Field
work was done on 12 August 1993, a time when the plants would
either be in flower, fruit or in advanced vegetative
4
development. Common names are used in the report. Table 1
provides a cross indax to the scientific names.
Nomenclature follows Radford et al., Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas.
Project Description
The 16,800 ft. right-of-way extends from U.S. 521 east
to Elm Lane West, crossing six tributaries of McAlpine
Creek along with several deep ravines. The topographic relief
is such that the only wet areas are on the immediate creek
banks, without extensive lowlands being involved. See map.
Beginning at U.S. 521, the right-of-way enters an open
field that was previously a pasture, but is now abandoned.
The dominant species are fescue, foxtail and Johnson grass,
lespedeza, maypops, smooth and winged sumac, trumpet vine
and seedling winged elm. The road then passes northeasterly
into a mixed pine/hardwood of middle succession (large pines,
small hardwoods) dominated by shortleaf pine, 16" dbh,
southern red oak 12" dbh, red maple 6" dbh, red cedar 6" dbh,
American elm 411 dbh and dogwood 411 dbh. The road continues
uphill into a upland woods succeeding from abandoned fields.
This woods is dominated by shortleaf pine, swestgum, water
oak, red maple and yellow poplar, all less than 81, dbh.
The road then passes downhill, toward the first
tributary, through an older hardwood, dominated by white oak
20" dbh, northern red oak 14" dbh, American beech I2" dbh,
5
sourwood 8" dbh and red maple 6" dbh. At the tributary, the
vegetation to the NW has been Cleared, while to the SE is a
N-facing hillside of middle succession hardwoods. This
slope was investigated for the presence of the species,
particularly the Piedmont aster. The dominant species on
the hillside are white oak 14" dbh, northern red oak 14"
dbh, yellow poplar 13" dbh, pignut hickory 1011 dbh and red
maple 6" dbh. The road however, crosses one tributary and
almost immediately crosses another tributary flowing west
along the N-facing hillside, before it passes into an open
pasture.
The road then turns SE, into a highly disturbed woods
that has been timbered, crosses a shallow ravine that is the
headwater of a tributary, but is dry, passes under a small
powerl.ine right-of-way and crosses a road. It passes into
the same disturbed, previously timbered woodland, then into
an abandoned field and under the high tension powerline
right-of-way. It then crosses a ravine, serving as a
wet-weather drainage,=then into an abandoned field. The
road then continues uphill into a hardwood/pine forest,
dominated by sweetgum 14" dbh, white oak I2" dbh, southern
red oak $" dbh and shortleaf pine V dbh. Many of the
larger trees have been timbered. The road parallels a
ravine to the S, covered by these same hardwood species
while to the N is a remnant loblolly pine forest that
has been timbered. This extends to the top of the hill
where an old timber road is crossed.
6
Continuing east, from this timber goad, the road passes
through a highly disturbed, timbered woodland, proceeding
downhill where it crosses two ravines. The vegetation along
the ravines is a hardwood/pine mixture, of white oak 21" dbh,
southern red oak 17" dbh, yellow poplar 15" dbh, shortleaf
pine 7" dbh and dogwood 4" dbh. The road continues uphill
into a younger successional woods, with no trees over 10"
dbh, then into a timbered area where it crosses another
timber road. Both of these timber roads, cited above, are
extensions of Paulston Rd.
The road proceeds downhill toward a tributary, into a
hardwood forest of yellow poplar 24" dbh, sweetgum 24" dbh,
white oak 2211 dbh, southern zed oak 14" dbh, river birch 12"
dbh, sourwood 12" dbh, sycamore 7" dbh and American beech 41,
dbh. Crossing the tributary, the road continues uphill,
across an old road and passes into a timbered area of
shortleaf pine less than fi" dbh. It then continues downhill
toward another tributary. The vegetation around the
tributary is hardwood, white oak, southern red oak, American
beech and yellow poplar, the largest 1511 dbh.
East of this tributary, the road proceeds uphill into a
shortleaf pine forest, trees less than 8" dbh, and then
downhill toward another tributary, with a disturbed hardwood
cover of sweetgum and yellow poplar less than 15" dbh.
Crossing this tributary, the road passes into a dense, young
successional pine/hardwood forest of shortleaf pine, red
7
cedar, yellow poplar, sweetgum, white ash, and red maple less
than 8" dbh. Two other small tributaries are crossed, but the
vegetation remains this saute dense, early successional type
all the way to Elm Lane West.
Excursions into the fields and woods on either side of
the right of way revealed no populations of the above
mentioned species. Additionally, no populations of species
rare to the flora of Mecklenburg County were found.
Habitats not directly affected by the road clearing, such as
the north-facing slope above the creek were investigated, as
were other sites along the creeks. There are no
recommendations regarding placement of the road due to
affects on the natural vegetation of the area. 'Most of the
upland vegetation has been timbered or is in abandoned
fields. The best hardwood vegetation is along the bottom of
the ravines and tributaries, and the right-of-way will
probably require a wider clearing as these are crossed.
However, no exemplary communities occur along these lower
topographic areas. -
Ja es F. Matthews, Ph.D.
8
Table 1
Master List of Plant Species
Nomenclature follows: Radford et al,, 1968, Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, UNC Press
Common Name
Ash, White
Beech, American
Birch, River
Cedar, Red
Dogwood, Flowering
Elm
American
Winged
Grass
Fescue
Foxtail
Johnson
Hickory, Pignut
Lespedeza
Maple, Red
Maypops
Oak
Northern Red
Southern Red
Water
White
Pine
Loblolly
Short-leaf
Poplar
Yellow
Sourwood
Scientific Name
Fraxinus americana
Faaus grandifolia
Betula niara
Juniperus virainiana
Cornus florida
Ulmus americana
U. alata
Festuca arundinacea
Setaria spp.
Sorghum halepense
Carya alabra
Lesbedeza ouneata
Acer rubrum
Passiflora incarnata
guercus rubra
_ 0. falcata
Q. niara
0. alba
Pinus teada
P. echinata
Liriodendron tuliAifera
Oxvdendrum arboreum
Sumac
Smooth
Winged
Sweetgum
Sycamore
Trumpet Vine
_Rhus glabra
R. co allina
Liguidambar styraciflua
Platanus occidentalis
Campsis radicans
G Jj ?-•?'`?... ?•. Sl'.k: ? ?Sy. '•'•? ?• '' ?1 ..--.. ? ? f?„?l/ ,++,?-•( ?! '1`?,j \tl? \/^ i ? _. tt ` 'V?y ?,., -,
^ ! ,-._,. ? ? ? }::.' .:,,• ; .41?, ? , ?.?'. •• '. `• v; : .`: ,. ?l I lr: ry'. ` ^k? l C ?L ?' ?`^ 1, •?.?c?.."t°2`'' I I ; ? ; .
ti• •(.'` y ,? ?? ?^" lr• rte' i" ^?{ ?' ?.\ ?\,J `f^ !? {
9 ^:`t•• ,F ? 5j;11 >r1` .` •,^ ,tom«, r. y ir.?•m???"-_'' / •`; - ',,,_ ?l ? ,??, ?? ? .r:
?' ?J •• ;?.T ' ? N`-' .•.-':1 `:. :?.,._ / ??,`;',??i: - ; .!?'\ 'tip, ,ll? V
lace yf?
••' / ! - •? i ; .-_+ '' , j4 ?.? , ,.-.+cti \ ? ter, ll 1 ? r„(?J \'\`? ,f.'.
^ !.??J ,?? •-,-i'- f_•'yJ 'i ?..,,7 396 #)11?-•.. \`11'r ?ad?:?l;, •, ,!„ J?? •`+? ?.? \`? `??' - `N-+
+? ! "` f ,??L. " . '--''/^.'?'? , ti.. ',: ^bStHtiC?,, : \yp?0'?$'\'?.?. • 1 ? I: ' 1l„ I' ? ? I ?? ?? i /i / I \ V ? 11f ? r?
•\ ?~S?}. %+.SY 1. `?..? .? .\ \ ? 1. .=.'? , ?? .,.r';? I r,>r?J'l?1? `\{,?\+?
?/? l?. t ?!\\?.\` `'?1`^.r"'^'\. .+;•. r:??` 1'\ '/ 4`b^'???^ ? ??i ?!/??I?•??_ ??1t\t? ?^r\?'???? \?- !',`?ii`
M E
??? !? X11 (-- r' L ^i =» ??' ?' '?• J'
it
C`,"??:?.V.?.. ?'1•_? :lid. `, l 1 r. - \ r'1 ) 1 1\?'.. ''?.-% J??a `' ,• ?? ?\ f?, '•?? ?• \?. .?'it
`` ? .?,Jrr^• lip .. .`!' - ,' ? ? ?• f I ? •, :..,t •`^-? ?__ - ? f ? `\ ? •`'rj ???
?-? •'?r t ? +jrJl,' - r. -...• _ :. '. r1 ?/'fj :V ^ :^.;?,' ??J 1 ?, '? 1:?'; Gy
V ? : i '''` ? ?'\ , 71 ' •"? .SfiD^ _.^'`.? \ ! ? ? \ ??? .? /^r I' I. ?n`? ! f r.,.?., r /' ?'i . ! 1.••?I i%'' ? .??V
'H4m ?`?•~ '`- `'` •i? 1 ?_°' _ 1:• 8M ?! //+r?:?"`. !" ; ? ? t ?/ !. ?'jf ? V?l ?? I-.
e-T
Approximation of road right-of-
/a ^1i? '?• •` way, with tributaries marked. \?• i i" `"'?\." ',
Some tributaries shown on the
?': ; r ; `: USGS map do not have a flow. ?'/??`+? ?,? \•=? '? ?, Y`";,.
(' •? •3675 ? ^• ? I \'\?' (3fi107 ? ?^ "' 1
\C?o ?•Cn ? ,\ 'Y;?•r ~r ?,/ - ? ...!••'.•?\ ?=rn t ? T'i ?f ?\.rr , a"\? ry?,
_ b ? . „'. .:•? ? . ; . ter,: ? -_ • ? (/+?(tI' rOi ? •?. '?
t ^ ,%/ •' ' 7,?-'ter"' . ?? t r I 1 `? +.-. ' `' ' .
l / + a
.' -y)tV ?.e`?\\?`ya?:? ?. ^ w e `A ^'\1 v' iw' •?y? •f ?,w ?' .\? ?•.I t II??,,,•..-a • \ j t
=bc
?., _ `??:>' ?` ' ' ?o\a ???• _ ? • •? \ -'? `'? ? 7630 _ ?.,.•? ? ;;' i
•- Cam`' ',y _f\?? ,? `? • ', ? \ p - .'•;••?
41
~;, ii J ?ilver Ru(r+ • .•i
Wit'-4,`\ ` :17 _ ? •?I?-•`. /? _r ,'`,' _ ?t , y ' ,?f - ^?i
• L_ i "?;? '. ? { ? /? I t ^'ec r'te'\C; ??? ') I "I • \,- •\ -
4 All
Ballantyne - Pre-discharge Notification - Final Report
APPENDIX D
December 3, 1993
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE BALLANTYNE PROJECT
23
Archaeological and Historical Overview and
Preliminary Assessment of the Ballantyne Project,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
November 1992
A Report Submitted
to
Crescent Resources, Inc.,
by
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
r-
Archaeological and Historical Overview and
Preliminary Assessment of the Ballantyne Project,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
November 1992
A Report Submitted
to
Crescent Resources, Inc.,
by
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
i
Contents
Management Summary ..................................................................... 1
Known Archaeological Resources ..........................................................3
Archxological Sites in Unsurveyed Sections of the Tract ...............................4
Historic Structures ...........................................................................5
Conclusions ...................................................................................6
References Cited .............................................................................7
List of Figures
Follows
Page
Figure 1: Known prehistoric and historic resources in relation to the
Ballantyne project ................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Probable locations of archaeological sites ........................................... 1
Archaeological and Historical Overview and
Preliminary Assessment of the Ballantyne Project,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Management Summary
This report has been written by Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. in response to a
request from Crescent Resources, Inc. for background research and a literature and records review
for an assessment the Ballantyne project, located in southern Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The purpose of this overview and assessment is to locate recognized or potentially
significant prehistoric or historical sites or areas within the tract, especially where management of
the tract might require compliance with federal and state regulations and guidelines for the treatment
of significant historical places. This assessment does not include a systematic, on-the-ground
field survey of the tract.
Two archaeological surveys for highway construction have covered sections of the tract,
probably equalling less than 10% of the whole area. These surveys recorded nine archaeological
sites, including one historic cemetery (31MK320) with about 45 graves. Most of these sites were
judged insignificant because of extensive erosion or other forms of disturbance. The cemetery is
probably not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, but it would still
be covered by the state's laws on human burial places. One small mill site (31MK523) represents
the remains of a water-powered mill of unknown age. The archaeologist who recorded this site on
a small, unnamed tributary to McAlpine Creek suggested that the site might have some
archaeological interest (Lautzenheiser 1989), but the site has not been fully evaluated.
In the unsurveyed areas of the tract, archaeological sites will probably average about one site per
15 or 20 acres. The prehistoric and protohistoric sites could range in age from about 12,000 B.C.
up to the early mid-eighteenth century Catawba Indian period. Historic-period sites in this section
of North Carolina date back as far as the mid-eighteenth century, when this area was settled by
English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, German, and African colonists. The historic-period archaeological
sites recorded on the tract seem to date from the mid-nineteenth century into the twentieth century.
The published soil data on Mecklenburg County show the lowland soils along McAlpine Creek and
its larger tributaries as poorly drained Monacan soils, where the probability of finding
archaeological sites (apart from mills) is low. The upland soils are well-drained soils that probably
supported a number of prehistoric and historic settlements, but the study area may be like many
parts of rural Mecklenburg County, where intensive cotton farming in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century led to wide-spread soil erosion, with detrimental effects on archaeological site
preservation.
A recent county-wide survey of historic structures recorded a number of historic properties in the
vicinity of the tract, although no recorded historic structure seems to fall within the project
boundaries. The Dunn-Ross Farm, a group of late nineteenth and early twentieth century farm
buildings, including an 1885 farm house, has been found eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. This property lies about 1,000 feet south of the nearest point on the
Ballantyne tract. The James Blakeney House (built about 1905) and Harrison Methodist Church
and cemetery have been considered for designation as local historic properties by the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission. The Blakeney House appears to lie only a few
hundred feet southeast of the Ballantyne tract. Harrison Methodist Church is about 2,000 feet
from the nearest point on the Ballantyne tract.
The Ballantyne project does not seem to have a direct impact on any known historic properties
either on or eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. From the
J-- Cam' U l_o> m
10' -- c
??:-'-•' ?'• i,/ ??/ ?•,"?? ; .?? •? PVC' : ;. •-:i;.'.•.•::.•`
C ? 65 nom. ?' 1 ?.::•:::.::••::.:;
i - ?Y -?? / ?• w
N 6 /V
cr)
CZ)
cf)
04
oil
l i ? ? ? ? '? ?? rte.. -•• ? I ? ? ? -?. _ ;1 ? , O
?-
Evy
CM CT
too
CC J
Cf)
Cf)
J
1
' oos--- O O
?? off-' -J `cm to s a ??
CR\
J v _
_? j ?\?, 550 ? _ _ ? ^ ' ? ??»? • '?'?.\ L
1 • r
a ;
\ % ;mac `\? ?• 1p ?? ?t/> ? ? c
AA -71
?
Mr,
-i 1? '0 1
vel
qa /
1.6
- • 1 V 1
L _
.0 Q
.0 a CL
0
a a a
_ i, ?.? ` 550 ? ; ;•'• :.? ???\ '?
2
perspective of local and state review agencies, the most likely questions are whether additional
archaeological sites are located on the tract (highly likely, especially in the uplands, where site
preservation tends to be poor) and whether the development of the tract will have secondary
impacts (for example, increased traffic, visual changes) on the Dunn-Ross Farm, Harrison
Church, and the James Blakeney Farm.
3
Known Archaeological Resources
The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History
lists nine archaeological sites on the Ballantyne tract. The two archaeological surveys that recorded
these sites were both studies of proposed highway corridors, covering small sections of the tract
(probably under 10% of the area; the coverage and the location of the earlier survey cannot be
determined). The earlier survey of a section of the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop highway
(Cooper et al. 1979) crossed the northern section of the tract and recorded the following sites (see
Figure 1):
31MK292 Called "The Open Well Site" in the 1979 report, this historic period site included
a stone-lined well, a horse shed, and possibly foundations of an additional
structure. Since it was not in the proposed right-of-way, the site was not
evaluated for significance.
31MK293 This prehistoric site produced one Middle Archaic Guilford point (4,500 - 4,000
B.C.), a possible Early Archaic point (8,000 - 6,000 B.C.), and 15 other stone
artifacts. This site was also outside of the proposed right-of-way and was not
evaluated for significance.
31MK294 The site record states only that this site consists of a "possible collapsed drystone
chimney.
31MK 319 This prehistoric site produced artifacts of the Middle Archaic period, the Late
Archaic period (4,000 - 500 B.C.), and late prehistoric Woodland artifacts.
31MK320 This historic-period cemetery has an estimated 45 graves. The site record states
that only two inscribed markers (one inscribed "W.D.") were noted in 1979. The
North Carolina Cemetery survey of the Division of Archives and History has
recorded only one cemetery in the vicinity of the Ballantyne tract. That cemetery
and 31MK320 appear to be identical. Cemeteries are rarely eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, but this cemetery is
covered by state laws on human burial places (for example, North Carolina G.S.
14-149).
A more recent archaeological survey (Lautzenheiser 1989) of the route of the proposed relocation of
U.S. 521 recorded four sites on the tract (see Figure 1):
31MK523 This water-powered mill site is represented by a masonry dam, built of stone
blocks measuring up to two feet by three feet, and a stone foundation, on an
unnamed tributary of McAlpine Creek. The archaeologist recommended test
excavations to determine site significance. The mill was probably a nineteenth
century structure, since the 1911 map of Mecklenburg County (Spratt and Spratt
1911) shows no mill sites on the tract.
31MK524 This small (30 meter diameter) Morrow Mountain site (5,000 - 4,500 B.C.) was
considered not eligible for nomination to the National Register.
31MK525 This historic house site, marked by rose bushes and blue cedars, was the
location of a tenant house. The house had been removed and the area graded
before the archxological survey. The archaeologist stated that the site was not
eligible for nomination to the National Register. The house might have been the
4
W.H. McKinney house shown on the 1911 map of the county (Spratt and Spratt
1911).
31MK531 This historic site consisted of the remains of a tenant house and a well. The
archaeologist did not consider it eligible for nomination to the National Register
of Historic Places.
Archaeological Sites in Unsurveyed Sections of the Tract
From earlier archaeological research in the county, we can extrapolate to other parts of the tract to
predict the types of sites that might be present on the remainder of the property.
Some large-scale archaeological surveys have taken place in southern Mecklenburg County in
recent years. The survey of the proposed Mecklenburg County landfill site near U.S. 521 (an area
just south of Providence Road, south of Ballantyne) covered 575 acres and recorded 23 sites
(Baker and Hall 1986) on terrain similar to that on the Balled tract. Nineteen of these sites were
found on upland terrain. Four sites were found on floodplain terraces or levees. Four of the sites
were later tested to evaluate their significance, but ultimately no site was considered eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Baker and Hall 1987). A large-scale
highway survey in eastern and southern Mecklenburg County (O'Steen 1987) recorded 59
archaeological sites. Of the prehistoric sites, almost two-thirds consisted of stone flakes that cannot
be assigned a date. Almost 8% dated to the Early Archaic period (8,000 - 6,000 B.C.), just over
9% dated to the Middle Archaic (6,000 - 3,500 B.C.), the same percentage dated to the Late
Archaic period (3,500 - 500 B.C.), and 11% dated to various Woodland periods (500 B.C. - ca.
A.D. 1700). Prehistoric sites were heavily biased toward ridgetoes (where 64% of the sites were
found), upland terrain directly overlooking and adjoining creeks and their floodplains. The next
most preferred landforms for prehistoric sites were ridgetops (24% of the sites), ridge slopes
(8%), and saddles (2%). Historic sites were all located on ridgetops and ridgetoes (specialized
sites such as mills or stills would of course be on floodplains).
In a sample of 100 prehistoric sites in the Mecklenburg County files of the Office of State
Archaeology, nearly half (45%) are on Cecil soils. (However, Cecil soils also cover about 45% of
the county.) Cecil soils are common throughout the tract's uplands, but the county soil map shows
widespread erosion (likely with poor site preservation) on the Cecil soils. In the next highest
category, about 15% of the sites are on the Mecklenburg soil type, which makes up about 8% of
the county ( and a large percentage of the tract). Wilkes soil (also very common on the tract's
uplands) accounts for 14% of the sites, but only 9% of the county's soils. The poorly drained
Monacan floodplains (such as those along McAlpine Creek and its larger tributaries) contained 6%
of the sites (mostly Woodland components) and about 7% of the county's soils (McCachren
1980:62). So far, the correlation of site locations and soil types tends to show a fairly even
distribution of sites across the different soils, with a slight preference for upland Wilkes,
Mecklenburg, and Davidson soils. The lowland Monacan soils (at least, the better drained
sections) might have tended to attract Woodland settlements, but apparently few others.
The farmlands of Mecklenburg County for much of the nineteenth century were devoted to
intensive cotton farming, which took its toll on the soils of the region. Many of the uplands in the
area show signs of severe erosion, with wide-scale loss of topsoil (Trimble 1974). This erosion
was probably responsible for the severe damage to some of the upland archaeological sites reported
in the study area.
Gold-mining was a significant industry in Mecklenburg County in the nineteenth century, and
5
.mining sites are common in this region of North Carolina. A summary of the known gold mines in
,North Carolina (Carpenter 1972:33) shows nearly 60 mines in Mecklenburg County, but no gold
mines in the vicinity of the Ballantyne project. Four mines (the Harris, the Champion/7.eb Teeter,
the Frederick, and the Ray mines) operated in the McAlpine Creek basin, several miles upstream
from Ballantyne.
If we combine environmental information about the Ballantyne tract with archxological and
historical information from nearby areas of Mecklenburg County, we can make some predictions
about the kinds of sites that might occur on the tract.. In the unsurveyed areas of the tract,
archaeological sites will probably average about one site per 15 or 20 acres. The prehistoric and
protohistoric sites could range in age from about 12,000 B.C. up to the early mid-eighteenth
century Catawba Indian period. Most of these prehistoric sites will occupy ridgetoes overlooking
McAlpine Creek and its larger tributaries, and a smaller group of sites will occupy ridgecrests and
saddles. Historic-period sites in this section of North Carolina date back as far as the mid-
eighteenth century, when this region was settled by English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, German, and
African colonists. The historic-period archaeological sites recorded on the tract seem to date from
the mid-nineteenth century into the twentieth century. The published soil data on Mecklenburg
County show the lowland soils along McAlpine Creek and its larger tributaries as poorly drained
Monacan soils, where the probability of finding archaeological sites (apart from mills) is low. The
upland ridge and ridgetoe soils are well-drained soils that probably supported a number of
prehistoric and historic settlements, but the study area may be like many parts of rural Mecklenburg
County, where intensive cotton farming in the nineteenth and early twentieth century led to wide-
spread soil erosion, with detrimental effects on archaeological site preservation.
Historic Structures
A recent county-wide survey of historic structures recorded a number of historic properties in the
vicinity of the tract, although no recorded historic structure seems to fall within the project
boundaries. (This information comes from the files of the Architectural Survey Branch of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. The "MK" numbers in the following
descriptions refer to their file numbers)
Three of the historic properties recorded in the Ballantyne vicinity are considered historically
significant on at least the local level (but not necessarily eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places). Other structures were recorded in the vicinity but were apparently not
considered significant.
The Dunn-Ross Farm, a group of late nineteenth and early twentieth century farm buildings,
has been found eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. This
property lies south of the junction of SR 3631 and SR 3630, about 1,000 feet south of the
nearest point on the Ballantyne tract (Figure 1). The central structure is a two-story
Victorian farmhouse built about 1885. The nomination includes seven other frame or log
buildings and 111 acres of farm- and woodland. When the property was nominated for
National Register listing in 1990, the landowner objected, so the Dunn-Ross Farm was
only determined eligible for listing (file 0I10591). In cases where state or federal
agencies have review jurisdiction over environmental impacts on historic properties, the
status of "determined eligible" tends to have the same status as actual listing on the National
Register.
The James Blakeney House, a Queen Anne/Colonial Revival house built about 1905, has
been considered for designation as a local historic property by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
6
Historic Properties Commission. The Blakeney House (file # MK1219) appears to lie only
a few hundred feet southeast of the Ballantyne tract (Figure 1).
Harrison Methodist Church and cemetery have been considered for designation as a local
historic property by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission. The
present church was built in 1902. The earliest marked stone in the cemetery dates to 1848
(file #MK 1221). Harrison Methodist Church is about 2,000 feet from the nearest point on
the Ballantyne tract (Figure 1).
Other Structures
The McGinn Log House (file # MK1226) was probably built in the 1820's or 1830's. It
was moved to its present location and reconstructed in 1978. Moving and reconstruction
of an historic building normally prevent its nomination to the National Register (National
Park Service 1986).
The Kerr Tenant House (file #1223) was probably built in the late nineteenth century as part
of a larger structure.
The Robinson House (file #1229) was built in 1908.
Conclusions
The Ballantyne project does not seem to have a direct impact on any known historic properties,
either on or eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. If the project is
reviewed by local and state review agencies, two questions will probably be asked:
1) Are additional, unrecorded archaeological sites on the tract ? Such sites are highly likely,
especially on the uplands. However, site preservation on Mecklenburg County's uplands tends
to be poor, and the county soil map indicates widespread erosion on the Ballantyne tract,
especially on the Cecil soils.
2) Will development of the tract lead to secondary impacts (for example, increased traffic, road
widenings or relocations, re-routing of utilities, visual changes) on the Dunn-Ross Farm,
Harrison Church, and the James Blakeney Farm ?

References
Baker, C. Michael, and Linda G. Hall
1986 An archaeological survey and evaluation of the proposed Highway 521
landfill site, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Report on file,
Archaeological Consultants, Weaverville, North Carolina.
1987 Test excavations and significance evaluations at four prehistoric
archaeological sites in south Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: an
investigation within the site of the proposed Highway 521 landfill site,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Report on file, Archaeological
Consultants, Weaverville, North Carolina.
Carpenter, P. Albert
1972 Gold resources of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Information Circular 21.
Cooper, Peter P., II
1977 Historical and prehistoric archaeological resources survey of a portion of
the Metro Charlotte 201 facilities, McAlpine Creek waste water treatment
plant, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Report on file, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cooper, Peter P., II, James Climo, Jr., and Gwendolyn Pine
1979 An historic and prehistoric survey of the Charlotte Outer Loop Highway,
Charlotte, North Carolina. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lautzenheiser; Loretta
1989 Archaeological survey of the US 521 relocation, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. Report on file, Carolina Coastal Research, Tarboro, North Carolina.
McCachren, Clifford M.
1980 Soil survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
National Park Service
1986 Guidelines for completing National Register forms. National Register Bulletin
16.
O'Steen, Lisa
1987 An archaeological survey of three proposed routes of the eastern Charlotte
Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Report on file, Garrow
& Associates.
Spratt, C.H., and J.B. Spratt
1911 Map of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man-induced soil erosion on the southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil
Conservation Society of America, Iowa.