19951255 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19960123

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
RECEIVED Asheville, North Carolina 28801
JAN 2 31996
ENVIRONyENTAL SCIENCES
January 10, 1996
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
Wilmington District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
1 Gt..l
r 11?
JAN 17 1996
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and
the Department of the Interior on the nationwide permit application
submitted by Mr. Tom Scott, of B.V. Belk Investments, to impact
jurisdictional waters of the United States on property located southeast
of Charlotte, off NC 218, in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North
Carolina (Action ID 19960587). This report is submitted in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in the application, the applicant
proposes to construct a residential golf course community--Sycamore Creek
Golf and Country Club--on a tract of 400+ acres located approximately
1 mile west of the future intersection of NC 218 and the eastern portion
of the future Charlotte Outer Loop. This project will involve filling
1.13 acres, flooding 0.65 acre, and excavating 0.27 acre of wetlands (a
total of 1.95 acres) in order to construct homes, rnads, and the golf
course.
The Service is familiar with the proposed project and provided comments
to Mr. Leonard Rindner on November 13, 1995 (copy enclosed). In our
November 13, 1995, letter, the Service supported the negative findings
for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) reported by Dr. James Matthews, and we concurred with a "no
effect" finding for this species. However, we stated that we would
concur with a "not likely to adversely affect" determination for the
federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) only if
our recommendations, as identified in our November letter, were included
in the final design plans.
The Service appreciates that the applicant has agreed to implement the
following measures we recommended to protect the known population of
Lasmigona decorata in Goose Creek, located downstream of Duck Creek:
(1) implementing a stringent erosion control plan during all phases of
construction: (2) quickly revegetating or stabilizing bare ground areas
after construction: and (3) irrigating fairways with water from the
constructed ponds. However, we made two additional recommendations--
preserving a 50- to 75-foot buffer along Duck Creek and employing
ultraviolet radiation for disinfection of sewage effluent or
dechlorination with a back-up system--that do not appear to be
incorporated into the design plans.
The Service recognizes that the applicant will be preserving a 25-foot
development buffer along all jurisdictional waters and a 30-foot natural
buffer along waterways adjacent to the golf course. The applicant has
also designed the golf course drainage so that runoff flows into
storm-water management ponds as much as possible. However, the Service
remains concerned about the discharge of nonpoint source pollutants
(i.e., herbicides, fertilizers, oil and heavy metal residues, etc.)
associated with residential and golf course developments. Freshwater
mussels are extremely sensitive to water quality perturbations, and we
believe that a larger natural riparian buffer, as recommended, is
warranted, especially as an added pollutant filter during heavy rains.
The planting of native wetland plant species along the littoral areas of
the drainage ponds, as proposed by the applicant, will also enhance the
pollutant filtering capacity.
We realize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) does not issue
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits so we will direct
our concerns regarding sewage treatment for the development to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). Basically, we are
pleased that the applicant will be using a land application system for
the wastewater.
In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate
Federal regulatory agency to review its activities or programs and to
identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitat. If it is determined that these
proposed activities may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated. Thus. the Service recommends that the Corps enter into formal
consultation if the above-mentioned recommendations are not incorporated
into the final design plans and into the permit as permit conditions.
Finally, the Service appreciates the measures the applicant has taken to
design the Sycamore Creek project to minimize impacts to wetlands, such
as utilizing wetlands as hazard areas on the golf course. The
application states that "mitigation is also proposed to compensate for
the loss of jurisdictional waters." We request additional clarification
on the proposed mitigation plan. We support the construction (i.e.,
planting) of littoral areas with native vegetation as mentioned above.
However, we do not necessarily agree that replacing native tree species
with herbaceous wetland vegetation constitutes mitigation. Perhaps
additional information will help us understand what is being proposed.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this
nationwide permit application. We would be happy to meet with the Corps
and the applicant to discuss our comments and concerns further, if deemed
necessary. Please advise us of any action taken by your office on this
project. We have assigned our Log Number 4-2-95-045 to this project.
Please refer to this number in all future correspondence directed to us
concerning this matter.
Sin rely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
CC:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Steve Tedder, Water Quality Section, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resource, P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh,
NC 27626-0535
Mr. Owen Anderson, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
P.O. Box 118, Northside, NC 27564
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 33726,
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A191A
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor V
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
p E ?--? N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 10, 1996
Mecklenburg County
DEM Project # 951255
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr.Tom Scott
B.V. Belk Investments
4400 Park Road
Suite 300
Charlotte, N.C. 28209
Dear Mr. Scott:
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.55 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing a golf course community at Old Sycamore golf community, as you described in your application
dated 6 December 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Numbers 3022, 2732, and 2671. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide
Permit Numbers 12, 14, and 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us'a new application. For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. Stormwater runoff from the golf course
shall be directed so as not to directly discharge into streams. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to the
undisturbed buffers adjacent to streams. Fill of wetland A shall be minimized by leaving a 50 foot wide
wetland in the rear of the lots; local stormwater shall be directed to flow into these wetlands. Deed restrictions
shall be added to all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands to prevent future fill. Wetland C shall not be
excavated or impacted by the proposed pond. Golf course ponds shall be constructed before extensive land
clearing occurs. Ponds shall be cleaned out after up-stream construction is completed. Additional DEM written
approval is needed for the plans for the littoral shelves. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Si ere y,
i
ston Ho Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Len Rindner
Dale Stewart; LandDesign
Wv@WR- t5, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES: /?
'_ Reviewer: T ;z4(, ? J,hn
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.: (? ascot C;
qty;'
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE:. Ig
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*'' *EACH ITEM
PERMIT YR: 95
APPLICANT NAME: OLD
PROJECT TYPE: GOL
COE #:
RCD FROM CDA: APP
REG OFFICE: MRO
MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE)
PERMIT NO: 0001255 COUNTY: MECKLENBURG
SYCAMORE DEVELOPMENT
F COMMUNITY PERMIT TYPE: N122614
IDOT #:
DATE FRM CDA: 12/07/95
RIVER AND SUB BASIN ll: 030712
STREAM CLASS: C
WL_IMPACT?: Y/N C.;
WL_REQUESTED : See al?ctiKU ro
4p m_
WL_SCOREM : S.e ct?}c?
r?
MITIGATION?: Y/OJ
N
STR INDEX N0: 13-17-18-3
WL TYPE : .see a #4, keel
WL_ACR_EST?: Y/N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?:O/N
MITIGATION-TYPE: iV/A
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/N
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED? : (3/N .Sae Jetckoel
?IAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?:(YvN
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/COND DENY See, tOMM+d-"
COMMENTS:
J 'A iii J Aj ll(Ago
a Sife- l4 ?s;kl'lu? I o? L2? -FhiS site- is ctf ?? very fop "krsU. - hert. is Av?
a, &4-44 5 t rca^ , htJ- Auc, i s f.orML &-Uf`clfKtf_ Q? D 0e r 44 row. Nn i ?ls pe??; at f1 ?(+e
aW4 -even" 4f mci it 0? f? Flay was r"pot a w*k4. 44 x0i /`urto? ?ties ?cret
{Xs so,M1,L o- 4 c??; kcs s??.T a?0/ea/5 1?f ???c i.4r?cGl? Ib 1%5 s; f' c
s
iQlio, a Sewtr Ilne. is pl tea (;7" f4c k.?e+,,4 d?.is %?a
^c. : Regional Office
Central Files °?+s wc?It is ?Ca"?`? A?4ho?f from ?4. ?dr¢cu1J} rotd.
S - (SeIe flu,, z.oz) = This 5; fC ?`5 a smart s p;oj on r creek w;A nip, l'
o hu wnod? s. r?•e s; k ; S I v(?e?? Leo 4WO f /uE?s. 9 4? ??uPoss;t;(e ?6 b leg oeti -
I Lti"cQ O?Ic S4w,4r? 14jiLscttA' d /rky q,,,4O be, a6te, jv delo?a? Ae e.&oeyhKG ib
a void K,,5 tvJ kj. L eavi ti,y e±e
C 5 /arit ?fr s mar cx6gtt
44w, 5114jai lobs.
cv VC6
G (sale P?w?+ 2?clz? 1 his si/e, ;t
S, k. III 1 ,? l /
lL bY?• ? O ? RK? IS CLfI'r"??LT? TKKG ri`?N k? ?vCII
ele
¢ t?
,,, re,Mtl,,??y sul?%rww? where is Ito /'easoK,
k devic lyer 64/a,16 it' ,htyta5', 5%Zc r /ooric? 'by
Cl,-?Iirnf ouf A;5 Grew. 1-4 wr?•FG? 5,oOo4 "414 Ow-za"SclAio?
5?r?c /?veeS
A-"?, r Ma 4 rCG ?V CAIY Ara ,{ e0mve-
// II- ;J ?? d? a vAw ?? ?oKCI ?rroolc 14- 'Ifee
(Njfdj kk, 114 B)
s. ?S
s;*'Iar 1i ?es• -?,roMre, 4 y w eca/
I he6e. Sees arc a// gA411
?
f ,, d
rG ?iny• ?e USA ?? ?'?`? S??Y? Si 2 e? ?l? l?l°cCI or/w 3 ?` hGS? u??i?4?+?? s
/1?u `L ?C55- Thy/4,rs Su6?.. 6Y
44;s
p fly o Fl cs? "acsis.
A
Project name.QU
County-.-
Name of evaluator,
Aquatic life value
Recreation/Education
A Nearest road 5k 1539
area 0• acres Wetland wid 570 meet
etioi. Date fq s y
point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Project name .ia -?,"OwFc
County L'4(o"4L-- W
Name of evaluator
Recreation/Education
gym, s zk C- Nearest road
d area 0 ?-?-7 acres Wetland Nvidl
12-
Jo47 - Date
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Project name
Nearest road 1-1?'y X18
Wetland areal acres Wetland wid
point if in sensitive watershed and
.......................................
nonpoint disturbance within
Project name C'° k Nearest road-:?!
County k6 A Wetland area-'Ie acres Wetland wid
Name of evaluator 1? ?• ?? Date -
Wetland type (select one)*
? B9Ctomland hardwood forest D Pine savanna ? Bog forest
[O/Fleadwater forest ? Freshwater marsh ? Bog/fen
? Swamp forest ? Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep
? Wet flat ? Ephemeral wetland ? Other
? Pocosin ? Carolina Bay
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
wei
ht
p Water storage g
3 x 4.00 -
'
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
x 4.00 - Wetland Score
' Pollutant removal
s
* x 5.00
Wildlife habitat x 2.00
Aquatic life value x 4.00 .,
< Recreation/Education x 1.00 '''? • ;?`%'"?i?
a * Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance withn 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius

Page 1 of 1
Tuesday, January 0% 1996 3:53:33 PM
LEONARD S. RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Tend Planning [phone]
Date: 1/9/y6
To: John Dorney
From: Len Rindner
John:
Just wanted to confirm our discussion about the proposed buffers.
The buffers we proposed are acceptable. Steve Lund thought they were
acceptable as well. My understanding is that the buffers are for the golf
course development. If it is applicable to lots then the Impact-A lot we
talked about may be a problem because we would need to leave an
additional 25' of buffer in addition to the 50'. The rear of this lot is by
far the most saturated portion of this wetland. Leaving a 50' wetland
area in the rear of the lot reduces the Area-A impact to + 0.12 Acres
from ± 0.25. Combined with the deleted Impact-C of 0.27 Acres makes
the total permitted area for iVWP #26 = + 1.55 Acres.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Len
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jan 05'96 13:24 No.001 P.02
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comm m'ion
ri
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276041188, 919-733-3391
Chatles R. Fawood, Executive Direewt
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dome
Water Quality PI g, D , I?EHI. VR
FROM. Owen F. Anderson, ont Region Coordinator
ITabitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 5, 1995
SUBJECT: 401 Water Quality Certification for Old Sycamore Golf Community,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina, Duck Creek, Yadkin-Pee Dee
basin,. 951255
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed
the subject application for 401 Water Quality Certification with respect to anticipated project
impacts on aquatic habitats. Our wmmcuts are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and
section 401(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended), and North Carolina General
Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to build a golf community on approximately 400 acres in the
Duck Crock subbasin on the Union-Mecklenburg County line west of Mint Hill. The area is
primarily open fields and abandoned farmland in various stages of succession. The proposed
project will destroy approximately 2.0 acres of high quality wetlands.
The drainage from the proposed development !lows into Duck Creek, a relatively high
quality and diverse aquatic tributary of Goose Creek. Goose Creek is one of two streams that
support the federally and state endangered Carolina heelsplitter (J-asmlgona decorata).
The wetlands on this site are important in maintaining water quality in segments of !.suck
Cock and Goose Crock; and thus; heIp protect the Carolina heelsplitter and its possible fish
hosts. The wetlands also provide important habitat for amphibians and other wildlife.
The development of this golf community has the potential to adversely impact the aquatic
habitats and aquatic fauna, including the Carolina heelsplitter. Sedimentation from soil
disturbance, loss of wetlands, stormwater pollutants (i.e. heavy metals, fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides) and sewage cflluent can individually or cumulatively impact the Carolina heelsplitter
and other aquatic life.
We are encouraged that the applicant has attempted to minimize impacts, will avoid a
point source discharge by recycling effluent to the golf course and will use best management
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jan 05'96 13:24 No.001 P.03
Old Sycamore Golf Course 2 January 5, 1996
951255
practices during construction. Leaving a 30-foot natural area along each side of streams and
wetlands at fairway crossings should help reduce pollutants. Maintaining and establishing
riparian vegetation is a most important measure to protect water quality; however, we do not
believe the proposed buffer widths are sufficient to provide travel corridors or protect water
quality.
We request that this certification only be issued if the following modifications are
incorporated into the ro'eet to protect the diverse downstream aquatic resources, including the
endangered Carolina neelsplitter:
1 • A minimum 100-foot forested butler of native trees and shrubs should be maintained or
ostablidwd along each side of all perennial streams. A minimum 35-foot forested buffer
of native trees and shrubs should be maintained along each side of all intermittent streams
and wetland where possible.
2. Deed restrictions should be placed on all remaining wetlands and individual lots to
prevent any further wetland destruction by current or future owners.
3. Remaining wetlands should be protected from degradation that can be caused by
interrupting hydrology or erosion from excessive water. SutYicient water should be
routed to remaining wetlands to maintain hydrology.
4. All unavoidable wetlands should be mitigates at a ratio of 2:1 (eroated:destroyed).
Wetland enhancement is not acceptable mitigation for destroyed wetlands because it
results in a net wetland loss. We recommend construction of some ephemeral pools
along wooded areas adjacent to fhirways or adjacent to streams and increasing the littoral
zone around the ponds.
5. Dams for the ponds should be constructod prior to clearing land for the ponds and the golf
course. This will allow the dam and pond to function as a settling basin to further protect
downstream water quality.
6. Disturbed ground should be stabilized immediately (within 5 days) upon completion of
construction. It iq recommended that arras be vegetated as the project proceeds rather
than creating a large acreage of soil disturbance.
7. Stormwater from the residential areas should be routed to the ponds on the course or be
allowed to sheet flow when possible. Grassed swales are pref6rable to curb and gutter
and are recommended.
8. Sedimentation and erosion control plans should be strictly adhered to and be
implemented for all residential, golf course and pond construction.
9. The use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers and application of sewage effluent should
be prohibited within the stream buffer areas and natural areas along streams at fairway
crossings.
hank you for the opportunity to provide input into the review process. We would like to
review the proposed wetland miGgatwn gplens and plant species. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at (919) 528-9$86.
cc: Janice Nicholls, Biologist, USFWS, Asheville Office
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone]

FAX COVER
Falls Lake Office
Date /_ 41-7r
Number of pages Including cover sheet 3
To:
?.,r.? tao.?.?hy
Phone
Fax Phone
CC:
Jan 05'96 1323 No.001 P.01
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Habltat Conservation Program
P.Q. Box 118
Northside, NC 27564
From:
QGv?rd ?9.?.o?esev
Phone
Fax Phone
919-528-9886
919-828-9839
a
r .RONARn c RDIDNEg
f.dr* r td Plarriee CooiWtant 7113 blcbwRy Not Drive
Lodoope Arthiteot m Raieigb, NC 27613
Lard Masing [phone]
Date: December 28, 1993
MEENORMIUMA
To: Tom Scott
Dale Stewart
Marty Kocot
Ed Schwcitur
From: Len Rindner
Tom:

The following is a summary of my meeting with Todd St. John of the NCDEM to review
the application for a 401 Water Quality Certification (in order for the USAGE to issue a
valid authorization the State must concur). Auer Todd's review he then reports his
findings to Jobn Domey in Raleigh who then makes the final determination. I had already
reviewed the project in a preliminary manner with John early in the design development
as well as Mike Parker at NCDEM Mooresville. 1 also pointed out our positive design
responses to the USACE, USFWS, and the SHPO throughout the project development. It
was obvious on site that special efforts were made to protect the wetlands from
sedimentation and erosion and accidental construction damage.
Overall, I believe they are (as well as the USACE) satisfied with the minimization efforts
and proposed mitigation measures eve have taken. However, there are three areas that the
NCDEM would like to have more information regarding minimization potential. These
areas were rated moderately high to high value according to the NCDEM's Wetland
Rating System.
The areas include:
1) Impact C (NWP #26 ± .27 Acres) - This wetland area was propoaod to be
exoavnted and/or impounded as part of the golf course. It is currently an area that has u?
developed into a bottomland hardwood forest I mentioned that I would ask the planners
to look at this area to minimize the scope of this impact while still incorporating aesthetic \ , 5? v
objectives of a water body along the 8th fairway. The USAGE also requested that the vl?
width of the clearing to install the Sanitary Sewer throughout the wetland be the
minimum necessary (he mentioned approximately 29).
J12
Q
Memorandum - Torn Scott
December 28, 1995
Old Sycamore - Wetland Permit Evaluation with NCDEM/USACE t
2) Impact E (NM 926 ±.09 Acres) - This wetland area was proposed to be filled
for lot development and to be crossed by a sanitary sewer right of way. It is currently a
mature headwater forest that has developed along an intermittent tributary and springs.
The actual wet area seems larger than what actually qualifies as wetlands. Both NCDEM
and the USACE potentially modifying the lot lines and/or sewedine to avoid the impact.
A possibility is to reduce the impact to a NWP #12 for a utility line installation instead of
a NWP #26 fill. Although cleared, tech tally the wetland would remain.
3) Impact A (NWP #26 ±.25 Acres) - This wetland area was proposed to be filled `
for lot development. It is cwrxently a mature budwater forest that has developed in a
perched wetland characterized by seeps and springs. I believe that the NCDEM will
approve this impact but will request that the impact be minimized to the extent possible. S
The USACE did not have an unfavorable response to this impact. ) OP-11 ' "
The NCDEM and the USACE may decide to issue the authorization with addressing
these issues as conditions of the permit or they may want us to provide follow-up with
plans before they issue the permit. I will follow-up this up with them after the holiday
period.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further explanation.
L.en

r
LL
0
Z
r .?
? •• ? ? ? ?1 t t '
k_?
V ?
NK-
?` J ? t •? .? ?: .'' \ tom, /.
Y?
CL
t tee/ !jljj o '.1• , ?` •;s:?l"
10.
or- A'
I .rte '; " Tom` `i (. J. +.t+• =? .,;!?.,? '?? • ?? # i !1'ii N ,
14
i.^3 ? •j?
.?' ?'rt ?t - r1 ? ,r,fi.+? N
' ??+? - •.? , i1 `? / ` i r ! t } 'ill '
ry'y .i .j• •:?-? '? ? ? /r:??1 ?, Z t -' ?? I i i?ll7?? 'r?r '?Jt?l
' +?`'. ?y .y.? - ! ? 4th ?t • ' ?
LEONARD a RDW EI&
Zovkvm mentnl Plamulug Consultant 7113 MkOONut.Dilve
Ladumpe Arebkecbm RRbk1-' :NC 27613
Lad PtatWloa
[phone]
Send To Fax Number : 119- 7153- Ml Dote: I f tP.' '
To :
From :•.
Rcfemce :
REMARKS / MESSAGE :
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Lana Deq*qn
ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
1700 EAST BOULEVARD CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
® 1700 East Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
? 14-C Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, North Carolina 27407
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
To: Mr. John DorneY. Water Quality Planning Date: 7?n
Division of Environmental Management NCDEHNR Environmental Science Laboratories

4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh NC 27607 [phone]
Project: Olde Sycamore - NWP
X Enclosed Herewith
Under Separate Cover
For Your Use
As Requested
For Review/Comment
For Approval
Items Sent:

i .`
Project No. 85164
Via: U12S
December 6 ,1995 Letter
Seven (7) Copies Nationwide Permits
Comments:
By; J /, Copy To: Tom Scott

LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
December 6, 1995
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Domey - Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management - NCDEHNR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: NWP "Notification" Application for + 400 Acre Residential Golf Course
Developrnent_-Site Jn__Mec_k1.vPbmrg arL_Uniou CQuaty-eag-d Mint.-Hill -known as-Old
Sycamore (Formerly - Sycamore Creek)
Dear Sirs or Madams:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Tom Scott, of B.V. Belk Investments, I am pleased to
provide the following permit information concerning Old Sycamore for your review and
consideration. The + 400 Acre development is located east of Charlotte, approximately
near Mint Hill and straddles the Union and Mecklenburg County border. The potential
for impacts to Jurisdictional Waters was anticipated early in the planning process and
impacts to wetlands have been avoided and minimized to a great extent. A majority of
the larger Piedmont wetland areas including a depressional swamp, and headwater forest
areas fed by springs and seeps have been avoided and/or incorporated into project as
open space. We have also worked closely with the USFWS and have incorporated most
of their recommendations to protect against potential indirect impacts to the Carolina
heelsplitter downstream in Goose Creek. We also have responded positively to SHPO
concerns. Correspondence with these agencies is included in the Appendices of the
attached report. All of the proposed impacts and mitigation have been preliminarily
reviewed and discussed with the Corps of Engineers (Mr. Steve Lund) and the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (Mr. Mike Parker). As an integral part
of the development, minimization of impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of
the US will include measures to protect water duality such as, management of
construction and staging areas; protection of natural buffer areas and vegetation; strict
adherence to an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan; and other Best
Management Practices.
%0
Mitigation will include providing buffers to enhance existing wetland areas; and by
providing littoral zones on the ponds as indicated in the attached report.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation.
Thank you again for yourtonsideration.
Si rely
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
Enclosures
cc. Mr. Tom Scott
B.V. Belk Investments, Inc.
4400 Park Road, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28209
Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc.
u
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rex Gleason
Mooresville R Tonal Office
FROM: John Dorney I
RE: 401 Certification Review
ENV1R0NM1--,'7',
fA NATURA1, k,I?:,?)!!!;??r ;
DEC 12 1995
DIVISION OF ENVIROWNTRI '001`!
MOORESVILLE REWONAL MW
Please review the enclosed 401 Certification applications by December 22, 1995. Please call me if
you or your staff have any questions, or need assistance in these reviews.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE NEW STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FORM
1. Old Sycamore Development (2 week review)
#951255
Mecklenburg County
The other enclosed material (if any) is for your general information and use as appropriate.
Enclosure

l?
ey?
\N?
4
fib0z,
t
1
1
1
N.C. Pwr. OF
ENVIRONMENT, HRALTH,
& NATURAL. RF,SOURCES
DEC 12 1995
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
OLD SYCAMO - ??
GOLF COMMUNITY
B.V Belk Investments
WATF-R QW,E
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
Prepared For
Mr. Tom Scott
B.V. Belk Investments
4400 Park Road, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28209
Prepared By:
I andOesign Engineering Services, Inc
1700 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
[phone]
Leonard S Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
[phone]
*Subject to verification by the USAGE
Date : 11/ 95
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
A. NWP #26 APPLICATION
B. NWP #14 APPLICATION
C. NWP #12 APPLICATION
II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
III. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
V. AQUATIC HABITAT
VI. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
VII. WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
VIII. PLANS AND MONITORING
APPENDICES
A. ENDANGERED SPECIES STUDY AND REVIEW
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SURVEY
C. CORRESPONDENCE

I

11

i

PERMIT APPLICATIONS

1
DE-M ID: ACTION M:
' Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Ps.:..it T):
' JOLN7 FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notuication to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
' WIL -M NGTON DLS i PUCT ENCMN7F_7_ER W.ATz. QUALTIY PLA;MNNG
CORPS OF EN- CMvE"ERS DIVISION OF EN- VIRON:
DERkRT1?ti i OF T'r? A ,MY :?1TAL M.?VAGEMEti i
1 P.O. Box 1890 NC DE. A.R'rJTc„?, i OF ENVIROr, y?yT, j'-r..AI.lT
P.O. ox ? AND NASL'R4L. RESOL-Rc S
-= NC 2840_.1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone (919) Z?1-.aSIIe??? NC 27625-0535
' ?': MR JOEY DCR:Nry
Telephone [phone]
OIvt (1) COPY OF ir COMPL.: , - APPLICATION SHOULD BE SM i TO T -M CORPS OF F_NGI cr...
Sc Mq (i) COPIES SHOULD BE SE 1 TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF _7N+ti-IRONMENiAL I'VLANAGEy?
1 PL ASE P.RIN-I:
1. Owners Name: e7 V. ,42=? v ._. .??,.? .
' 2. Owners Adarss:
3. Owners Phone Nt ^er (hone): /- 704 2-47
4. If A.Col.icable: Ap nt's aaae orresponsioie corPcrate official, add, ?•
.ss, pac.,_ num'ce.
1 ?E
5. Location of worn (MUST ATTACH.M' AP). County:
Nearest Town or City:
Spetic Location (Include road numbers, Iandmars, etc.): Se 4
' 6. Name of Closest S?ti r?/River.
7. River Basin: '*nW_/'j Aq=-
' 8. Is this Projer Iocated in a wage shed classified as T.•otit, SA, HQW, ORW, WS L or WS II? YES L I NO
9. Have any Sec-don 404 . ??
Pests been preciously requestzd for use on this properry? YES II NO L_ _
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of ac-_s of wit.,-:s of the U.S.. ineiudin- wetlands, located on je:x.Mte:
f' , of Ac ze;
11. L?tr-c.s Sam/ iS'
Number of acres of wares of the U.S., including we• .
.Inds, impacred by tce'proposed• proje=
1 Filled:" ?? Gres
Drained:
' Flooded: -t •
Ezcavat_-?: . 27 QrC/?s ??
1 Tocallmpacted:

F
12. Description of proposed work ( aaca PUNS_8 1,,7- X 1I" drawings o
?- atx): <Se?
13. P?x--use of proposed wore !!e _ /Do/
- -14. Star. -: sons way the aaplicant believes d2at this activity mist be ca
taLmto mimir,i wedand rred out is wer3ands. Also, note measu.?s
impacts.
P 1.??.. L „ r/ 17. -
Is. Ycu ara re?uird to contaxt the L'S. Fish and RiIdIiie Se:vicz (listriS) an&cr.NzWcnalMarine Fisheies Service
(I`]MFS) re^ardin; :he ptese :c° or any Fed.^-ally lis,*ed orpmpose3lor- listing ,ciaa?•?d orthr-.:L- :e3 stoics or c :cal
habitat in the permit area that =v be affected by the p posed project ?
Dave qou clone sa . YES {-- NO [ l
RESPONSES FROM TrIE liSc WS ?ND/OR NIti1FS SH=OULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are r=ui.-:d to contact the Stan- FI'tszoric 'o serration 0m= S
prop ^?.; s in ?e x r arm which may toe aa'e?.rd ' ;he ? (xFPO) ngardiu; the presenca of historic
roras.... Project? Have you done so? YZS {/f No[
l
RESPONSE -FROM 7HE SrE?O SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
li. Additional information r=uired by DPI:
A. Re•'and dr. ;e tioa maa s..awing all we•-ands, st:_-=,s, and 1aims an the prope:ty,
B- If available, =r'ese:,tative phetograph Of wetlands to be i=vac,.,d by project
C. If celineadca was perfored by a corLSUltan 'T .- ' .
delineation line. r, iaciude ail taro Sheets ttlevaas to the clot.-meat of the
D. If a s*Xrawa mans e=ert plan is re?uir-, for this proJ '
F- What is land use of smmundin; property? ar!^?r^ dpy_
F. If applicable, wbat is proposed method of sewage cisgosal?
Owaer's Sigaattut Date

N2 onw-ide Pe P A C-I-ION ID:
.:nit wuesred (P.:.vide Natier.wide Pe---it =): # lAt
JOE TT FORA FOR
Nationwide permits that require notuication to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that rewire application for Section X01 cn:-titic3tion
RT ti124CTON DLS iR?C i
CORPS OFENG-NMERS
DERART_l?V' OFT: s =motif
P.O. Box 1890
?' - ;_^, cn. NC 28-?-02-1 g 90
ATi V. CEShw-CO-E
Telephone (919) z 1511
DrVrSION OF -=--,4-VLL0?v?L? i ?L 2tiL? N? C-??1 i
NC DERdRT NM-N-j OF B V'LRON1 ?v% - =-'.LTr',
ND N-'utL4L, RSSOL:cCrS
P.O. Bcz 29535
276?5-0535
Telcphct:e [phone]
ON-E (1) COPY OF i=rS CO?yTL-== APPLICATION
SL 1"m (7) COPM.S SH-0 ,71 D BE SZ I 1 TO T; ; - SHOULD DIVISION BE SE -N7, TO TIM COR°S OF NA vGL?r,?y%
ENM
' PL ASE P_ 7\71. OF 1d.4:Yn
1. Ow.me.; Name: 951 V. Ate,
I ?. owne. A'ddr--sz: P"A"
3. 0-,-hers P :cne N c-. b (> on;e): /- ?G'y? -'SZq Cy S4 `.
(W4. L :?r:piic: bier ?_°o*.'s na,^e cr:?crsicie arsj:
.caI., ad ;ss, pacne n,.,-,her

5. 1--radon of wolf (tiffJS T Caua
iY _?cl•?tla./ .r S?
N*x Town or Cry:
Sp=.ac L.ocaricn (Include road nuzaee:s, Iandma .sa, e=.):
DV-- nrG. %7"'
?W 7
6. Name of Close= Sce am/Riv
7. R°.ver Basin:
8. Is this proj='- Iccated in a waz--=hed ci.ssifed as T=':-' SA, EQFi, ORS; 7v'S Z or W5 II? YES [ J NO
9. Have any Se 4on C1
' pe:-u.irs be_°n _ :, .rioas:v rues for use en this prce^r? YES [ ] NO
I yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number ..' _ .
Of ac:-s of r a:.,: = of the U .S.. including
we'lands. Iocat_ ; on 1--;'.SMI: .
I I . Number of acres of 'w
e•; of t$e U.S.. includin.- wetl?m s, impac . d by tce'propose. proiec--
' Filled:
Drained:
Flooded:
Tor I L:.pac - l?i'1 TD n rX?/A&v f .. ??

I2. Des:;pticn 0: ::'-Ocosed work
d=w4
ngs only):
13. P•u:.cse of prpcscd worms 2 - ' '
- -14. S== --=So= w 7 tt c aruii.-..ant beiiev -b ,
es that u..:s ac,rirf nLSt ?a ::rte oui in rre'.iads. ALA, note =r:.st:.:s
.tak.:.a.tc -we;iand acs.
I6. You ar- r=l': rc to center :Lc U -S.
F.sa and Sv ua?if- S=-ri? (C Sc ri
) aad/cr Va:dcnal _N a_-ac Fisae S
uZ'..$?.u.^..° cr =7 L .a'-+r_ .SlIV ?1e.^i a2•;T rTQ a
$L" fC?ir 1S?.n==n, fsw
drat :r. the ar. a tha= =y be a5 =__,_d by tie pose : =ie r •- or` d sce cr c:: ?I ,
Fwve you done sa? yzJ NO[
I
SrONS'r5 ROM ME liSr ri S AVM/OR NI?FS Si:aLLD BE FORWARDED TO CORDS.
16. You ar- to car,,: to Ste. F»:.rsxorc P:- ^r on
grope: ^_cs in ?c x.:•:.:t ar= wiL:.:.Ty:;r be ai±e... -- by O ar (nr -*J) r Y ; =c prase^c., of
t e croccsed Have you done so? YES NO [ I
R=?i-ON,S'c QOM ir.? S'r'?O SF-OLZD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Ad i 4cnai infcz_:ccn rte,: by DE,i: '
A. Wcdand,'•:•,
,:.ap s:.owin_ aL wes.'a_.^ , ' kk,- an to prey.
Fs. U avaiiabie, -'?'res?? :ve cactcgz;;h of w e!:j=cs to be i=za ,: by pro je
C. F d-.1L--r.c^ was pe-.'crd by a ccnsaltanr-
de..^^eaz cn ae. ar dz s:.ec:3 evani to tine a== of the
D. If a ==-w - .: e.T rt piaa is '
...r -° .cr Wis 7=j e::;
arc.:
E wpy. '
what is land am UL ?._l=UM 'irc proB?y?
F. If a=licacle, wb= is prcpod method of se :?a ciseosal? GL- r? ion -- WGf -?/
4- ...? s
Owa?'s siaturo Date '

' DE.tif ID:
Ci ION ID:
Na^onw;de Pe.^..ic P uered (P:oviCe Nariorwide p°--:c ): r
JOLT-T FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notuication to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that rewire aPpIication for Section -,4?O1 certification
' 7'?tiLNG7ONDISTR?C: 1?iG- - --a
CORPS OF L` ZG 47F ? a QU?I--r:'Y P ! A -C
DE?4RT_ E2 - -- of T'r=. ?IIY DItiZS ON OF B OIy-y :Vl'_yl ?yL V? G`1,?? i
' P.O. Box 1890 NC DE2 -R yL--?, i OF
R' iu ? cn. ?iC 28=A2-1 S 90 AND N: - ?''R.?.L S OLZC'S
Bcx 29535
T.-.,=hone (919) 2,? I-?5 NC 216Z-4-053.5
Z JOE-7'q DO-\7= f
Teieracr: [phone]
Oti3r (I) COPY OF- CO?
.y2r AppLICA-717ON SroL-LD BE SE,, i TO T?? COP-DS OF ??iG?,?.
' Sc v y (;) COPES ScOLZD BE Sc:Y11
PL TO T:? i i.- DIVISION OF =-,,7
..?SE P_?..?%
?Olti?i? r
1. Cw?ers Nzme: LLG
' 2. oW=e.?dz-ss: Pte, sv
o. Cw?e.? P'?one N? - q
(- crk):
c:'s name or r=Pc sfoie cnrar..re c ^ ?,..
-?- Lc...ai, ae....SS, gacre au?ca:.
*4 V49
5. Locadon of work (-Nf-ST A1"'L3C:: _lL??). Counry:
NL--^M Town or Carr.
Sp-e?-c I.:,eadon (IncMd- read nL:mi:e5, Iandmarss, etc.): .
tea- X74.1
' 6. Name or Closes: S4 = a/Rivr: />,C .e
7. River Basin:
' 8. Is ;his projerr Iccatrd is a wazerzhed .I:e as
liass T?-o= SA- HQW, ORTv, IWS I, ar wS L77 Y.:.S [ J NO
9. Faye any Sec?on 40pe.- u be? , p?.rio?iy rw:uer,? ar use on tE?is pr; eyrj [ ] NO
L yes, a-zIain j-?--`
10. Estimated =d aurrce- of ac°s of watt- , or the
US. c,udin? Icca, on
- IVY
ry-- -
II. N /t
umce: of ac: es oz ware. of the U.S., inc:udjng wc,!znds, impact--d by
F.:.1ed
Drained:
F1 c c'-4 e- d:
E::.avat?+: - -
' Tct I Lrnnac:ed
12. Desc-ipdou oor:ropose Work (Arnch PLANS-S Ir" x 1i" drawings only
See,
?r?or7
13. P.-:cse of grczcsed worms 5e-p- It e? ??Do.i
• -14. S; = .-,.: sons way the a--eiic=at be?ie ves that this activirl IIuc be C,--.,;
^.to W4nirri wetland ianac:s. out in we?.3aads. Also, note mm=a:--s
1.5. You r to canzz.,-: t z U.S. F. h and R-licliie
or nay S?°ri? (C Sr rig) axsd/ar axonal farm Fsac ier S ,z
aabitat in the c-
rnc- •`'e ?rrserc.- i=ce.--31I'b lined or=c'o ? ?asz- v e r-?. ar??r z?:? secs or --
abitat in the pe-=t :rte t v be ?.ci by ttre coSe Ee you -I
lone so? YES t-r
NO i ]
R: rONS"cS r301i ir'k' US ri S AND/OR NNIF•S SrOL7.D BE FORWARDED TO CORDS.
16- You ar r-^ui.- c=L,,,:
e Starr F-Ds-?.~r_c r:_oa 0: (Sr-?J)?+rQ We Presence of a:.wz:c
Frot in thcx:r * ate wh ;,:: taav be affeced by t;.e crcccs° rnoi '. Have you don -. = NC [
so? Y':S {/? I
R`.-rONSc FROM ire Sj -•O S'r:oT-LD BE FOR-WA.RDD TO COP-
17 MS.
Additional info- zdca by DMA.-
A. stcwi: Q all werlaacs. and lam on *i.'G
Ei. 11 avait3cie, :err„°8^'. ."vC pilctoe =j, of we
d== t0 CZ :?.D1C'. Cam,
71 ?? -
C. E deiinea.ren was ce:_or ;,y a ccnsslt`n:, iac:.:d: a'? ca= sh. to d= pl==c-.- of the
deazuion line.
is .-xtzi+ fcr u is ?roje?, ar-?^ =py
E R-har is Iaad ase of su?--ctmdia; prcoc-,y?
F If apcIic Ie, what is prcrvsca method of sewage disposal?
CW='S Sim Date

I PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

' II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed residential golf course project site is approximately 400 Acres in
Mecklenburg and Union County, North Carolina. This is approximately 1 mile
west of the future intersection of Hwy 218 (Fairview Road) and the eastern
' portion of the future Charlotte Outer-Belt. With the rapid population and economic
growth in Charlotte and Mint Hill vicinity, residential development and golf course
developments are moving outward into neighboring counties and municipalities.
' The current project area is primarily rural in character with mostly former
agricultural and undeveloped land. A large portion of the acreage is in open fields.
The woodland areas undergoing various stages of succession. Current land use
and in the vicinity is primarily agricultural, woodland, and low density single family
residential.
1 The "Old Sycamore" project of approximately 400 Acres will be a Residential Golf
Course Development consisting of single family dwellings, an 18 Hole
Championship Golf Course, and other related land uses. As shown on the
Nationwide Permit (NWP) applications, the developer seeks approval to impact
approximately 1.95 Acres of Jurisdictional Waters. The following sections present
the result of the environmental planning and regulatory reviews of the project site
and a description of the impacts and proposed minimization and mitigation
measures.

' FORD' SHEPH DS 29
Co --? 801 150 Rowan Co 70
16 Catawba 21 150
CHAR TTE TERRELL 150 152 152 CHINA GROVE
M IDEN 150 - ' :? 'lredell 1,s MOORESVILLE
_AREA i.l r O, 136 L D 229 152
- - - ? ??'
p 15 30 -- ' 1 % MT, OURNE
/(? 21
321 SCALE IN ES ( / EHOCHVILLE
150 16 Like Norman,,, DAV SON KA NAPOLIS
' BO CITY > CO ELIUS 136
GOODSONVILLE TRIANGLE r--'
COLN 73 `c1?:
' IRON STATIO Lincoln Co 73 115 73 73 CONCORD
27 LOWESVILLE 1 73
HUNTERSVILLE
HIG HOALS ALEXIS Mountain klenbur` Co 29 49
LUCIA e g
21 601
P?:ED•?pfR
32, Gaston Co STANLEY e_ HNr iPtio
' 279 > Co Cabarrus 200
273 ;
27 e n 49
DALLAS HARRISBURG
275 _: ANLO MT. L o 16
LOWELL / Zt?l n f :4 49 24
74 1 HARI..O
321 29 29
27
521
CRAMERTON 74 29
BEL ONT 1 160 ALLEN MIDLANC
G. ST NIA 2 T 24 ?
u - (CHARLOTTE 49 24 51
274 ' IHT 0 AT70HAL
321 279 I IAl RT © 16 74 MINT HILL 601 ?----
CROWDERS l 1
CR t 218
021 FAIRVIEW
BOWLINGGAEc'1J' `3 ? b \ 521 SITE i
55 RIVE ILL £??•~ 160 , j M TT'HE1NS
CLOVER 557. -''
PINEVILLE Union Co UNIONVILLE
49
?.
York Co 55 51 S LUNGS
((,1 16 INDIA TRAIL 74
161
' FILBERT 49 274 21 \ 200
321 WEDDINGTON BAKERS
zke FORT MILL=-.
5 YORK TIRZAH 160 16 84
NEWPORT MARVIN N O
? 21 ? 74
161 521 7s
49 321 324 5
' GENERAL LOCATION MAP
1
1
I
i
1

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

1

t
u
III. THREATENED AN ENDANGERED SPECIES
Federally listed plant and animal species with endangered or threatened status
are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service has identified two endangered species that could occur in Union
County - Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthis schweinitzii), and the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Schweinitz's sunflower thrives in full sun
characteristic of successional fields, margins, and forested openings. The
Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel which prefers shaded areas either in
a ponded portion of a small stream or in runs along steep banks with moderate
current. Primary habitat is waters less than three feet deep with a soft mud,
' muddy sand, or shady gravelly substrate. It is norm4y restricted to protected
silted areas or under banks especially associated with obstructions such as
stumps or fallen trees. Its current distribution according to the USFWS is limited
to portions of two streams --- Goose Creek and Waxhaw Creek -- and a small
river originating out of rural areas in Union County. Based on the
recommendation of the USFWS surveys were conducted to determine the
presence of these species. The surveyors were also sensitive to the presence of
other Federal, State, and local Candidate species, and Species of Concern.
' Because the site contained potential habitat of the Schweinitz's Sunflower and
the Carolina heelsplitter a field survey was conducted in conjunction with the
planning efforts of this project. The study was conducted by James Matthews
Ph.D. and Edward F. Menhinick of UNC Charlotte, Habitat Assessment and
Restoration Program in May of 1995. According to their reports (See Appendix
A), no Federally listed endangered or threatened species was identified on the
site. Other federal, state, or locally listed species were not identified on the site.
As required, the USFWS was contacted. Their concurrence letter of November
13, included comments and recommendations regarding water quality protection
to avoid potential impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter in Goose Creek. Planning
response to these comments include the following commitments:
1 . The project will be constructed in a accordance with an approved erosion
and sedimentation control plan. The project will meet or exceed or local and/or
' state erosion and sedimentation control measures during the construction of the
project and will be maintained until project completion.
' 2. A temporary ground cover or mulch shall be placed over bare surfaces
including spoil piles during construction to minimize sedimentation. If this is not
feasible in an approximate 15 Day time frame then other forms of Best
r Management Practices (i.e. temporary sediment basins, silt fence, etc.) will be
implemented. Permanent vegetation in these same areas will be re-established
as soon as possible after completion in order to provide long term erosion control.
r Temporary grasses will be utilized during off-season periods.

3. The site is currently being developed utilizing an approved sedimentation
and erosion control plan. However, until approval to construct the ponds is
authorized buffer areas along jurisdictional waters have been retained to avoid
impacts. When the pond sites become available they will be utilized as large
settling basins for siltation and will be constructed concurrently with the golf
course. The freshwater lakes as well as reclaimed waste water will be used to
irrigate the fairways in the golf course.
4. In order to stabilize stream banks, minimize runoff from the golf course and
maintain a travel corridor for wildlife, a minimum 25' (each side of a tributary)
development buffer is proposed around all jurisdictional waters. These will be
preserved in their natural state to the maximum extent possible with the exception
of utility and sewerline construction and unavoidable creek stream crossings . In
the golf course a minimum 30' natural or naturalistic edge or buffer will be
retained when adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. Manicured
areas of the golf course will end a 30' from the top of a stream bank and
disturbed areas within this buffer area will be replanted with native or acceptable
naturalistic vegetation. Impervious cover with the exception of golf cart paths,
walking paths and similar uses will not be permitted within 50' of any stream or
Duck Creek. The golf course drainage has bee designed so runoff flows into the
storm water management ponds to the maximum extent possible.
Drainage from the golf course shall be designed to minimize direct drainage into
' surface waters. Drainage from the maintenance area shall be directed to a wet
detention facility or bio-filter system. Where feasible filter basins installed for
sedimentation and erosion control throughout the golf course will be remain
permanently. In most cases the buffer area will be wider due to required rear lot
line setbacks and topographic limitations.

1

5. The developer is seeking a non-discharge permit from NCDEM for the
application of reclaimed waste water to irrigate the golf course fairways. No
discharges of waste water are proposed to any surface waters. Chlorination is
proposed for disinfection to achieve a high degree of safety commensurate the
potential for human contact. However, treatment facilities will include a 5 day
emergency pond and 90 days of wet weather storage. Dechlorination will occur in
these holding pond through dissipation. The result of this detention time will allow
this reclaimed water to be used on the golf course without injuring the vegetation.
6. Mitigation is also proposed to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional
waters. These include littoral areas constructed with the pond development and
by re-establishing herbaceous wetland vegetation where the trees have been
removed.

State Pr
The Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis) is a fish that inhabits small streams in the
' vicinity of the project area. This species has a federal status of Proposed Special
Concern and a State status of Special Concern was found in the tributary to the
south branch of Duck Creek and has been avoided to the extent possible. The
species prefers small clear streams of less than 15' width with moderate to swift
current and a sand/gravel benthic composition. It apparently tolerates a wide
range of water quality conditions and vegetation types adjacent to the streams
' and appears resistant tom pollution. (E. Menhinick). Although several intermittent
and permanent tributaries and their headwaters will be crossed or temporarily
disturbed by the proposed project, it seems likely that the darter if present would
' continue to inhabit these streams after development. The greatest potential
impact would be from construction related sedimentation and turbidity. Therefore
strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
I implemented during the construction period in order to alleviate further
degradation of water quality.

1

CULTURAL RESOURCES

J

IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the Survey and Restoration Branch
(SRB) of the NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) was visited in February, 1995 to review existing mapping on the
USGS Quad maps, if any. The purpose of this review was to determine if there
was of previously identified sites in the project area. Based on the review of the
maps at the OSA and at the SRB, no previously identified or surveyed sites were
indicated on the maps within the project area. Although several areas around the
project area and in the vicinity have been surveyed and although several sites
were indicated, none were determined eligible for the listing in the National
Register except for historic Long House. The SHPO was contacted for review
and their response is included in the Appendices. Since the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location of significant
archaeological resources and several prehistoric archaeological sites have been
recorded in the vicinity of the project a comprehensive survey was recommended
by the State Historic Preservation Office. Also, additional information and
photographs was provided to SHPO regarding the Long House and it was
determined that the project will have no effect upon the historic house. A survey
was conducted by Tom Hargrove of Archaeology Research Consultants, Inc.
According to the survey, Tom Hargrove identified an ante-bellum farmstead site
that he determined had significant characteristics and an associated landscape.
This site is described in the report as well as a letter to the planners on
September 26, 1995 (See Appendices). Based on his recommendations he was
asked to delineate the area for potential preservation or future archaeological
excavations. The land planning and civil engineering consultants then adjusted
the plan and roadway design to avoid the delineated area completely. Required
formal contact has been made with the State Historic Preservation Office
requesting concurrence with these findings. An approval letter of the actions
taken to avoid the site was requested. A letter from the SHPO was issued finding
the realignment acceptable as a temporary measure to avoid impacts to this
fragile historical resource on November 17, 1995. In this way the road
construction and wetlands permitting should not jeopardize this potentially
significant site.
All correspondence is included in the Appendices. Any other communication
regarding this subject will be forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
immediately upon receipt.

?II

t

AQUATIC HABITAT

V. AQUATIC HABITAT
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of headwater wetlands and
intermittent tributaries of Duck Creek. A variety of wildlife is supported by these
systems including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, mollusks,
' and crustaceans.

E

J

Fish Species
Fish species that are most likely to occur in the project area includes (but not
limited to) high back, creek and blue head chub, green and red breast sunfish,
pirate perch, tessellated darter, white sucker and rosyside dace. The Carolina
darter, a species of Special Concern, was found in the tributary to the south
branch of Duck Creek and has been avoided. Therefore strict adherence to an
approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be implemented during the
construction period in order to alleviate further degradation of water quality.
Crustaceans and Shellfish
Cambrus and Procambrus crayfish are expected to inhabit areas near intermittent
tributaries. Indigenous and Asiatic clams, and snails are likely to inhabit the
ponded areas and are not expected to substantially inhabit intermittent tributaries.
The diversity of fish, crustaceans, and shellfish, will be limited on this site due to
the intermittent nature of the small tributaries.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Amphibians and reptiles that are likely (but not limited to) to occur near streams
include dusky and two-lined salamanders, spring peepers, bullfrog, mud turtle,
skink, black snake, and copperhead. Existing habitat is expected to remain in
natural areas close to the banks and in undisturbed wetland areas.
Short term construction impacts, primarily stream sedimentation will affect aquatic
habitat, however this will be minimized to the extent practicable to promote rapid
recovery. Project construction will strictly adhere to an approved Sedimentation
and Erosion control Plan. Best Management Practices will include utilizing
siltation trapping ponds and other erosion control structures where appropriate.
Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish and aquatic life such
as fuels will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near surface
waters. Also, as required by the 401 Water Quality Certification conditions,
measures will be taken to prevent "live" or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

VI. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
' The ecological, aesthetic and recreational values of Waters of the United States,
including wetlands, are protected by Federal and State regulations. They are
considered sensitive habitats for fish and wildlife and also provide flood protection
' and pollution control.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges and
' authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the disposal of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States", which includes wetlands. The
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural resources,
' Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section also reviews
permitting effects based on Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are defined as:
t under normal
d th
t
a
, an
'Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration to suppor
etation typically adopted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
of ve
l
g
ence
circumstances do support, a preva
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas". (33 CFR 328.3(b), 1986)
h
ti
d
y
c
rop
An area is determined to be a wetland when it exhibits Hydric Soil, Hy
Vegetation, and Wetland Hydrology characteristics. These characteristics are
' required to be in accordance with the definitions in the US Army Corps Wetland
Delineation Manual, 1987. Areas which exhibit these three characteristics is
identified as a wetland and permits are required for development activities within
' these areas.
The Clean Water Act also protects surface waters through Section 404 and
' Section 401. Surface waters can include, but not limited to, creeks, lakes,
streams, ponds, and intermittent tributaries.
METHODOLOGY
Preliminary identification and delineation of the Jurisdictional Waters on the site
were determined according to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
' Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987, with Appendices. Preliminary data
gathering included review and interpretation of topographic maps; USDA Soil
Conservation Survey; aerial photographs, and preliminary site visits to selected
' areas. Then the Routine On-Site Determination Method was utilized to determine
the upper boundary of the wetlands. In order to make a positive wetland
determination indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric Soil, and Wetland
' Hydrology must be identified as described in the manual.
Typical observation plots were located along transects perpendicular to the
' drainageway direction to observe and record potential indicators. This information
was then recorded on Data Form - 1 which indicates specific information about
' the typical plot. The upper boundary was assumed to occur between the non-
wetland and wetland plots. Due to the complexity of this site numerous additional
test plots and borings were conducted when necessary to increase the accuracy
' of the delineation. The locations of these sample observation plots are roughly

le
yl ? \ i
_ O
,
6 C-0
l R45?-,/ F i5?9 ,
.s4?j?
/YmA
?.. .
PFOIA
' NATIONAL WET t- E> 'S; INVENTORY MAP
-TI P?DIA
mow. * 5 '.""&??'?? h ? a,?p ri, ?i,,:7'? ? +? «.r ? ? .. St (/\f
DeD.
CeD2
AC
ti%? •4y Ce 2 d?? ?1lTeC32 GeB2
1 ?..
10, ? o BaB
CeD2
'iA
218 BaB
CMB
?reC MQ CzD "' CME
"h GOC ?F
ati F ? VLn?4 , ^2t ?^6 ?:'*1. T Wh ?e? F F
GeB2 A
a
r
'ar..+> C c.., s 3 ,r TJ?t?'yi
a .
BCD
A
ti
,wr y
{ BaB - Badin channery silt loam 2-8%?',
y BdB2 Badin channery silty clay loam 2to 8%?
"-»
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam 2-8/70
CeD2 - Cecil sandy clay loam 8 to 15%
CmB - Cid channery silt loam 1 to 5%
GeB2 - Georgeville silty clay loam 2 to 8%°? +
?IGfB2 - Georgeville silty clay loam 2 to 8%
GoC - Goldston very channery silt loam 4 to 1
? HeB - Helena fine sandy loam 2 to 8% TbB2
ALgB - Lignum gravelly silt loam 2 to 8%.
Mo - Monacan soils `•e 'BUE ?? ;fir '?`"
ScA - Secrest-Cid complex 0 to 3%
\ • _..?? _ ? f ?.. ? ?...> Wit.:
`r
TaB - Tatum gravelly silt loam 2 to 8% SCS SOI L SURVEY
VaB - Vance sandy loam 2 to 8%
f.Jrn.rtel:ftiFY, % UJI{ ?x£3av ;, ? wt {i
,x .....raR.;^F 3 afar: 3:1?ira taf ?':..?^.Sri" wV=i.cy* > ( t / I.,--

U. S. OE?.aRir';-Jr OF AGRiCULitAc
Sail Ccnservacion Service
Hydric codes (HC) :
Vegetation codes ('/C):
Sec_icn II-A-Z
June 1991
HYDRiC SOILS
Union Counrl, North Carolina
1 Hydric sails, only because of saturation for a
signifi cant period during the growing season;
2 = Hydric soils that are frequently =iooded for long or
very lo ng periods during the growing season; and
3 = Hydric soils that are ponded for long or very long
periods during the growing season.
1 = Hydric sails that sucport woody vegetation under
natural conditions; and
2 = Hydric soils that do not support wcocy vegetation under
natural conditions.
IMPORTANT NOTES: (1) Hydric soils in this county cannot be famed under natural conditions
without re.^.icving woody vegetation or hydrology manipulation. (2) Scme map units and included sails
listed as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydric soils and wetlands because
the hydrology has been altered through drainage or other manipulations.
A. Map units that are all hydric sails or have hydric sails as a major carmpanent.
Mac Unit
Symbol HC VC Mao Unit Name
NONE
B. Map units with inclusions of hydric sails or have wet spots.
Map Unit Hydric Normal location
Symbol Map Unit Name Inclusion HC VC Inclusion
ChA Chewacla silt loam, poorly 1 1 depressions
(3A) 0 to 2 percent drained along base of upland slopes
slopes, frequently sails
flooded
CoA Colfax sandy loam, poorly 1 1 depressions
(148) 0 to 3 percent drained along drainageways
slopes sails
He8 Helena fine sandy poorly 1 1 along drainageways
(578) loam, 2 to 8 percent drained depressions
slopes sails

U. S. OEPARTHE.NT OF AGRICULTURE
Sail Conservation Service
HYDRIC SOILS
Mecklenburg Ccunty, North Carolina
Hydric codes (HC) :
Vegetation codes X)
Technical Guide
Sec:ian II-.A-2
June 1941
1 = Hydric sails, only because of saturation for a
significant period during the growing season;
2 = Hydric sails that are frequently flooded for long or
very long periods during the growing season; and
3 = Hydric soils that are panded for long or very long
periods during the growing season.
1 = Hydric soils that suopar- . woody vegetation under
natural conditions; and
2 a Hydric sails that do not support woody vegetation under
natural conditions.
IMPORTANT NOTES: (1) Hydric soils in this county cannot be farmed under naturai conditions
without removing woody vegetation or hydrology manioulaticn. (21 Some map units and included sails
listed as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydric sails and wetlands because
the hydrology has been altered through drainage or other manipulations.
A. Map units that ara all hydric sails or have hydric soils as a major component.
Mao Unit
Symbol HC VC Map Unit Name
NONE
6. Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Hydric
Inclusion
HC VC Normal location
Inclusion
He8 Helena sandy loam, poorly 1 1 depressions along drainageways
2 to 8 percent slopes drained
sails
IrA Iredell fine sandy poorly 1 1 depressions
loam, 0 to 1 percent drained
slopes soils
Mo Monacan loam poorly 1 1 depressions adjoining uplands
drained sideslopes
soils

Page Z
Union County
B. Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
Map Unit Hydric Normal location
Symbol Map Unit Name Inclusion HC 4C Inclusion

IrA Iredell loam, 0 to 3 poorly I I depressions
(SIA) percent slopes drained along drainageways
soils
ScA Secrest-Cid complex, poorly I I depressions
(128, 0 to 6 percent drained along drainageways
IOA) slopes sails

located on the Approximate Map. Once the wetland / non-wetland determination
has been made the characteristics at that point were utilized to determine the
' wetland boundary between transects and additional test plots through visual
observation.
The wetland boundary was marked in the field by Leonard S. Rindner
,
Environmental Planning Consultant and was reviewed, field adjusted
and verified
,
by the USACE (Steve Lund) on April 17, 1995. The approved wetland boundary
' is marked in the field with blue and yellow flagging. This delineation between
upland and wetland was then surveyed by a registered surveyor to determine the
actual wetland extents for submittal to the USACE for confirmation, planning, and
potential permitting purposes.
Wetland Desari i n
The National Wetlands Inventory Map for this area has identified these wetlands
and tributaries as PFO1A (Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous
Temporarily Flooded). Other areas based on site review could include PSS1A
' (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded); and
PEM1 F (Palustrine Emergent Persistent Semipermanently Flooded); and PFO1 C
(Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded). The pond
area is PUBHh (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded
Impounded). The wetland areas are in various stages of succession ranging from
emergent to mature bottomland hardwood forest. They have formed in perched
water table conditions, in flat to nearly level areas, along intermittent tributaries
,
and depressions over an extremely dense clayey subsoil layer often associated

' with inclusions in Cid (CmB) soils. A depressional swamp areas was also
identified on the site. Other wetlands have formed within in
l
i
i
c
us
ons
n Monacan
(Mo) soil along Duck Creek. These wetlands are considered valuable for water
quality and habitat, especially amphibious.

Surface drainage on the site is in a northwest generally to southeast direction
.
Duck Creek is a tributary of Goose Creek which eventually flows to the Rocky
River. It is in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The Water Classification is "C" :
Aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and
,
agriculture. The hydrological features include man-made impoundments and
' intermittent to perennial tributaries of varied width and depth and adjacent
wetlands.
' All the surface waters and wetlands on this site are above the headwaters line.
The extent of the Jurisdictional Waters were determined in the field following the
' Routine On-Site Determination Method as defined according to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland delineation Manual and verified by the US Army Corps of
' Engineers. The extent of the Jurisdictional Waters of the US on this 400 Acre site
is approximately 6.47 Acres.

Breakdown of Jurisdictional Waters on Site
' Wetlands ± 4.01 Acres
Surface Waters ± 2.46 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters of the US + 6.47 Acres

1

1

a
b
N
y?
2
O
a
0
a
s ^
W ^
i
1 i
e ?
a
0
a?
? ur«n, ,avu,n•^m

4 ?w oe?e?v '"

;E?ls
} i

11 fit
U
r
N
[ Ob0
?h b N7 ?Mi q
r0j 2
l
y
a?3
r
a = a'
ijll
3 ` ?i-
9 =?7s'
_Wril
S:
s?
a°
9
c?
F1 I a hill
1711 i
I _I11IIIiI??•1 .r•I•...J??
JIII I
Z
4
W
t
J
W
O
Z
LJ
I
W

1 ?U
3'1'?r?lS aSSY ; :? ti U
?dg??' f? :i? ! ? O of m
r,a?ri? I d T ip !dY d a yo
?a
+?qq 1
hill µf. ;
11 ?+ V i
yo qry 3 ? i. t ab
e ? °?' Of) Oy HJ /
}} Mrb q
i ..,, rr) gad ? V ?3
4 rryi ? q i _
R-?? % ?3 r? M1 ? g a
r _'? \ ? '• nr g v ? ? g3 Y 'rrl
?? .?? ? M ? ? ? e M • r
° n 4 ?3 _« .arfrr ? .$= r.a._rreS ?
F 9i s ? ? 4 i n
_ \?c/^ r o e a - ale
° ? ?.. ? Y Y eEi t
w ,)V9'16 w G ? G y
,o0]?e' 1A Y Y ?i a Y
H111i 20 C j?« ?f Y ??
? N
?•Y ? Y; z
iits
i ]e ea, iq ?U•'
.s,' u ' !
2271
n 09'00 Yt' M - _ 1
9 ? 0e]ess" '"
o-
0

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: `t)?/?p?Mr?? Cry Date:
Applicant/Owner:' County:
Investigator: yi State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?N Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot ID: •I
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
/
3._ 4.
?G+'>Li?,
-

5. C 1t I< /Q-e Vi a?r jerLt ? _?_ 12 Lenn
i?9 .. 87'TIC--
13. /? l i gC
?' ,;?GcJ 14. C drr? <^n ?/
7.??r?r TA-e
-
15. i4r 41--

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC.). G
y
Remarks:

a? ro S S
V'0 /y
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Ind ators:
nundated loxe*a1
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available _
_?Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
=/`Nater M
k
ar
s
Drift Lines

Field Observations: iment Deposits
_-' Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Ir /I
Depth of Surface Water: On.) Seconds Indicators (2 or more required):
cxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: /., tasLeaves
ter-Stained _?Local Sail Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 On,) _ FAC•Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: . -710e- oil S/C?oe/i 0.CO (51,;0,
?

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):r-1 ( ?I C
Drainage Class: / oo.-

Taxonomy (Subgroup): 2/YY?fC. Field Ot?rvetions yogi
r
uQitla
d T
? Y
'Q
? ?
appe
ype
es J
o
Profile Descriotion: /
?I 171-/L ?/?LIiJSr c>r? S
Depth. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle / Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Conrrgst Structure, etc.
?r1G7/?) lt:?

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _-- Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime fed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_L?8leyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
reak- m Sv, l l?d? c,v?S
? n?Grl a14
?c. c.?rs ?r
I
L
-5?211r )
CAO ley
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? tNo
o (Circle) (Circle)
Wetfand Hydrology Present) Hydric Soils Present? o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks: /
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
' Project/Site: 4
Applicant/Own
Investigator:

Date:
County:
State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: y
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
O-
T
µ
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
S.s?f/I'1Gt/? Cv t _
12.( /gym ??C l?aGliC!!?'1 ( ??
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 08L. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
/40
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_. Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs ?1'nundated
_ Other _°;?'Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _j-,Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 12, 4-fSecondary Indicators (2 or more required):
(in.) dized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Local Sail Survey Data
?? FAC-Nautral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ , , (In,) Other Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: e
LL==== 4?? 417V a?a frl ? s f

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ?? - L/fin?m
q pct V, <i / ?-Gm Drainage Class: &&1, ?"± /
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Muffle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Conrrzst Structure, etc.

-3 o Y2
[
-
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _--Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipadon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Seducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List
V Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: //
S31 h? 11+I IJS/rm o

C?/??Gr>'1?- r/?i
y?lC n? soil
f'l a?f?-CS /0 ej o-1, lr,.- e'
2 - Y -710 51c7 /-1 C/ /Piy CST Gt/?aV?
WETLAND DETERMINATION V
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? as No
Hydric Soils Present? es o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand7 Yes No
Remarks:
/mss/?' ? / ?1.?'/?n /'" )' ??? V???°r-/ T U1????
rr1 ?ovs c?a-yS /e ?5b
2011
p
i
UAIA (-URM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: aye, ??k-- Date:
Applicant/Owner: V County:
Investigator: State: ?w
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes %"No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:_
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge
_AarialPhotoQrapha Primary In ators:
undat
d

Other _
e
?
_
No Recorded Data Available aturated in pper 12 Inches
star Marks
nft Lines

Feld Observations: iment Deposits
a
in _VD
ags Patterns in Wetlands
S
Depth of Surface Water: econda nd(cators (2 or more required):
(in.) x(dized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ater-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 f On.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Re rks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name {.?(
(Series and Phase): I `? p/?a Gw,?1 Goo / ?S Drainage Class: -5161Yl ej-e Poo
--7f / / Fi Id Observations dry //)Q
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 4RIAla Q4le.!4c- L-/ rP onfirm Mapped Type? YespC_ V
Profile Description:
Depth. Matrix Color
inch
Horizon (Munsell Moist)
ess)) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/conrrgst Structure, etc.
,
__
r?
-7.5 F L y /' t

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
ducing Conditions _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National H
d
i
S
il
Li

_ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors y
r
c
o
s
st
_
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
R 5S1 b
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? A." o (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? o
Hydric Soils Present? o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland) es No
Remarks:
w4-ffa-r? Or, /d? si ?Cjc ?t oL
Sl -vat,-f 2csY? Owe- ?Itck-' ld'oin sc S ?h?o c ?

DATA FORM
' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: ?Co rnor2 Croo k- Date:
Applicant/Owner. F;5_v. 1County:ff?,
Investigator: _L--e-r-) State: ,dam
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (]S) No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesV? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
' VEGETATION

1 HYDROLOGY

_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tids Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Sail:
©
0
?_Qna
(in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators-.
?>n ndated
?turated in Upper 12 Inches
2"Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
S invent Deposits
!Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Sacondar}LIndicators (2 or more required):
/Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 11 Inches
_'7"Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L)c.fc?. J 17 Sti?.??-cam -?xt r-f-cc?!' ( (? ?d?
`?r?t I ?? ??Ov? ? X67 I ??-Cr?Y1 ? -c,-?-? c?l?a.l ? -2,?
CZ?2? ?Yl Cvrnhl ,u - Gv (-- 'T Y(?? .
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): is rY1G wAG
p
Drainage Class: ra-117e-

? Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) ?/ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth.
finches)
Horizon Matrix Color

(Munseil Moist) Made Colors

(Munsell Moistl Mania Texture, Concretions,

Abundance/Contrast Structu
e
t
f? r
e
c.
3/?-?' fo Y?z- /-s _ !o Yr=-- ?G/? l,Dw?MtY?/IJIS,"1nGT
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
-. Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquie Moisture Regime -Ilsted on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-k?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ` Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a o (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
4-31 11
(? 04- dvlv-a- C' f 1? IS w l ^eL
WO-E,J dor.,,n a+ ?uecA
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: GFr?1brC? Cr k- Date:
Applicant/Owner: R--;w-(k- County: I Vn?or.
Investigator: dos ?r..o(ne? State: t4C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (S? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes g Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
' VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
2. CA /' I -A n d r I C..rt. %??? 10.
4 ?? C u r_k n/ 12.
5. /1 L ?/?- "lam 1)4 li 13.
14.
8. _ 16.
II Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-),
/00/ II
Remarks:
l/ P?Cvr
' p
HYDROLOGY

Qrv?•?-
?dc?r -t-ur-
??M?
l x-el - t,-- 0(tk-? wL ll ra(nGoe-- u?'l
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (?Qn,)
A
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1L_On.)
Depth to Saturated Soil:
-:t 61 On.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Z-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
=ffrainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
A--ITxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
!Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:/
-(irGY?? ?? I ?V-a'?+ ? ?I ?P? (?? r?Cn^? . ?E?o.?MGc;1?1 I

SOILS
Map Unit Name
L
L
.
g
(Series and Phase):
?el ) Drainage Class:
vey
I IV Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl AbundancelConrrest Structure. etc.
SL? ? C7

S Y 5/' 1
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ L,-?-nc,. dons
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor OWanic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ R ucing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
leyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
16?1
yr C'a'/n le)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ea No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? a No
Remarks: /
.4-f L'?147Havw(-
-?z??lc?Ica-??hG?.?c-a?
on d S
a ? ? 1 4v A-2L L(xj oa(c,

Li r+ i #+ rvnivi
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: CJyCstrrtore. Cre`?c.- Date:
Applicant/Owner: . V.
,((,L County: X44-k- ^10"
Investigator: State: "C-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes F1 Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Ind ?7
undated
44
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available i
aturated in Upper 12 Inches
_S _ 4ater Marks
_ Drift Lines

Feld Observations:
Qtr- t ?D?I
(h c" Sediment Deposits
?ainaga Patterns in Wetlands

Second
y)ndicators (2 or more re
uired):
D
Depth of Surface Water: r nn.) n
q
?Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
t
Depth to Free Water in Pit: O - 12.,- On-) _
_ Water-Stained Leaves
!l=ocal Sail Survey Data
/? /I
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 -? Q (in,) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: I,ocb({, Q,44-y, 4LIe-,( t-I d ra? rY?s
pd?c?. s -???kcd of U,

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(S
i
d P
?
?
er
es an
hase): Drainage Class: ?0'm?
?
?/J
Taxonomy (Subgroup): -4J ? Feld Observations G /
Confirm Mapped
Type? Yes o
Profile Oescriotion:
Depth. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
2.5 y
-fr?

7/v,

Hydric Soil indicators-
- Histosol oneretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Re
ime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Li
t
d
L
l H
i
d
i
g s
e
on
oca
r
y
c So
ls List
_ Re trcing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
ieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Orr i ?r /`t14?1 &14/ ` /d }v
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? a No
Hydric Soils Present? ea No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Re rks:
?
rG^? o? ?i4?7 r od. clrvlvcal 1.-)dl c
'40 ?- 5?jjek j 1";e /^ /gyp..
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION

u

u

VII. WETLANDS PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
The developer has actively pursued professional planning input to develop this
project while maintaining strong sensitivity to environmental concerns. Preliminary
planning involved site analysis and consideration of environmental and regulatory
issues. Topography, natural features and systems, circulation network, site
organization, open space and development requirements, and environmental
issues were considerations in designing the overall plan. Once the final extents of
the wetland areas were determined, a very strong effort, as depicted on the land
plan, was made to adapt the schematic land plan to avoid and minimize impacts
to wetlands. During the schematic planning stage meetings were held with
representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to
review schematic planning efforts including unavoidable impacts, and
minimization and mitigation measures. The plan and commitments made in this
report reflect a positive response to the preliminary negotiations, determinations,
and concerns of the regulatory agencies. Except for temporary construction and
development impacts we believe that the proposed project will not cause
significant impacts to the ecological functions or values of Jurisdictional Waters of
the US.
Avoidance and Minimization
Through creative planning efforts, filling large areas of wetlands to build the golf
course and development sites has been avoided. The wetlands were
incorporated into the design of the golf course, or avoided completely. Where
fairways cross wetland areas, if any, woody vegetation will be removed by hand
clearing or other approved techniques to avoid "mechanized land clearing" and
soil disturbance. Vegetation in the fairway area will be replaced with low growing
herbaceous wetland vegetation.
Best Management Practices will also be employed to minimize impacts to
Jurisdictional Waters. This will include:
Siltation Barriers
Sediment Traps and Diversion Ditches
Barricades to define construction limits to sensitive sites and to protect
trees
Preconstruction meetings
Other methods as appropriate

Vehicular access will be restricted to specific areas to avoid disturbance to
adjacent wetlands and natural areas. Methods to prevent short term impacts will
be inspected regularly and maintained during construction of the project.

Proposed Impacts
The development of "Old Sycamore" will require an estimated 1.95 Acres of
impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the US utilizing NWP #26. These are detailed
on the following plans and schedules.
- Impacts to Duck Creek for impoundments in golf course
and dam construction ± 0.38 Acres
- Impacts to Intermittent Tributaries + 0.34 Acres
- Impacts to Wetlands by impoundments ± 0.48 Acres
- Impacts to Wetlands by general project development + 0.75 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted Utilizing NWP#26 + 1.95 Acres
- Surface Water Impacts = ± 0.72 Acres
- Wetlands = + 1.23 Acres
Temporary disturbances to wetlands, intermittent tributaries
and creeks ± 0.42 Acres
Total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted Utilizing NWP#12 ± 0.42 Acres
Utility line construction will adhere to general conditions of the
Modification to Certification for Nationwide Permit 12 - Utility Lines 10/6/95.
These include the following:
1. Written concurrence from NCDEM is required if the utility line is installed
parallel to and closer than 10 feet to a stream or if the utility line crosses a stream
channel at less than 75 degrees or more than 105 degrees of the stream bank;
2. Construction corridors parallel to streams shall be placed at the furthest
distance from the stream to the maximum extent possible;
3. That established sedimentation and erosion control practices are utilized to
prevent violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standards. All
sedimentation and erosion control measures placed in wetlands shall be removed
and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land resources has released
the project;

1
1
4. Annual species suitable for wet locations shall be planted within jurisdictional
' wetlands for soil and erosion control. Perennials such as fescue are prohibited;
5. No fertilizer shall be applied within 10 feet of streams;
' 6. The construction corridor (including access roads and stockpiling of materials)
is limited to 40 feet in width and must be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
7. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into
' contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
8. Permanent, maintained access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum
' width practicable and shall not exceed 10 feet in width except at manhole
locations. A 10 feet by 10 feet perpendicular vehicle turnaround must be spaced
at least 500 feet apart.
1
9. An anti-seep collar (See detail) shall be placed at the downstream (utility line
gradient) wetland boundary and every 150 feet up the gradient until the utility
' exits the wetland for buried utility lines. Anti-seep collars may be constructed with
Class B concrete or compacted clay. Compacted clay shall have a specific
discharge of 1 X 10 -s cm/sec or less.
'
10. Placement of rip rap is restricted to stream bottoms and banks directly
impacted by the placement of the utility line. The stream berm must be restored to
' the original contours after construction;
11. This general certification does not authorize any permanent changes in
' preconstruction elevation contours in waters or wetlands. The permitee will have
a specific plan for restoring wetland contours. Any excess material will be
removed to a high ground disposal areas.
Road Crossings utilizing NWP#14 will be at bank to bank locations No more than
' one per-tributary or creek utilizes this NWp

1

ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
I
T 18
I I inches I Utility Line
I? (diameter Varies)
I
1 foot I ; _ Class B Concrete
?- or Compacted Clay
6 inches French wicth s6 inches
---?
Not to exceed 40 feet
SECTION
Class B Concrete
or Compacted Clay
12
inches
6 inches 6 inches
--? -.0- -? ?--
PLAN
ow-
• ? ? ? :? / ? ter-- ? --.r-, . , ` t; - ? /
'i ?? . ?, \? - ?. -. f- < \.' ? yam.. ?•+? /-?,? r . `o' "C- - 1 \ !?`
?'.? \`\ `\???\? ? / ` ? fl 1 - cf ??y I'- Y • T'ti- ? ?r^?? /'?h'?'? `+ i ?? -` 1 ?? in
?: ?? _% ;?? ?-\? ?? -. _ ` ?h• ` i lam' ?•? .t_?' ! \-? ti?
-? \ T _\ \ ??? ? y. ??'? lF ../ `+? /. I \? ?] `l I x7761; ? ? ? / I " _
' -1, •i•„d'' ?1 -/LILY: ,1J? I P• t"'Y" \
1 17,
1 rr//
fio
II f? , I n i
Xv.
\ it, •? ?\ . / ?. ?k J .n
9M
y ti.? ^ !.? / yyc? a 1 yi o i.
I .1V
A, THRU U = NWP#26
#=SHEET NUMBER
' OVERALL SITE PLAN
of n o
o
25 U
Z
s zo N
m ••
V.
'C. z
CL ?' .... \. V?\•? N V
V\,
/ u a
LU t,
\ 1 ?? a
V ? ,(' l.': ? ? ) '! l t •,? ! ail' ?", ? Z '^
V
I N
CL < I ?..
- \ \ W
\\') i/ \ \\ uj
-co
•./ ••• • ? `` III ^,, i;;? /,: / I I (' ' ? r ;? / / ;/
I `) ,`) ,\?`??\ 1\\ ' 1' --i'? \' \???? `? \?1\'•. ? ? ,\,\ l 1. ---•- \? ? -? ? \
a
f q
- ) /
IV-
moo/ ?. \ • ? ,©, .f.1 - ?`\` 3 $.\` ,i ,' I ? `
d (' \\\ '\\?t1??/?
/ i , \ ; • /. ':?% Q ? /,i,?l t, / Q // •,?' 1'/ , , W ? ?( J t?, / i1.?:1_?,}1
LIL,
CL _
11 i ?\ i,ry/,,?.i ?_ _ - 1 Ji? I'i1??1! (/ ?%/i/rrl??? 'I ??? 0 _i•. S+i,V ??rii
/ / _ \ _ 1 W \ \? \ \
r ,
tai ? 1 ,
Y / \ ??y., _/ i1 I 1 /
1 1_ . _... -. - - % I } ' , \ ! ' Vii, `• " ' -
i \ - / I t i X11 1;\1\\? `J\= •I .
'? •'?. \\ _ __--_?-??/ f ?, // (111"1? \1 `i?I7 '_ ?? ' ,` _-"- -
'.? \ •_ -- - , ? /F ,•/' /.? //' , /,X111,1 f I, 1 1?, ?, i 1+' ? '?f__ ._''•'
7 7. 00
4:.- LLI

fit;
i _ _ __ t,? II , ',! i• ? ? ?.•,i,?, II, Ili i /
LUC)

Y
W
W

U
Y
U

D

U
I

p

N
3
e ?

a
o a m
3
' Z

A

N Q
N

'
Y

7

1
h Pc?g 1?i
s '
U f,
7
t\
a

• i
W
O
I -
Z
a-
LW
r
N

1.- -- -
Q _ V7 y ??- ?1!y
Q - W - u?
_
i N
4 Y-
lik,
77
,
\
-
1? t
1- \
J?A
IV L
00
LM Q
W
cn 41 to
LL , f/1 r = Q GQ (? \ \
1 W k : !-
LL.
661 uj
/? 3 Y 1 \t I It 1 ? `,\ ._ I 77; ?r
r ?y
fill
?? m
i, _ , I: b! I W 1
\
LLJ
CL
•. • - / ''/'' / Q ?/, / it ,' 1 •1•. Q - /l
a
I
\ Y - LL
LL LL
LL /
LLI 4111?
s
m Y
N
09
NN,
f If
vD,
?? Lam- v, § `\? ?. / /. _•\?' `, \'? ,\\ ?, \?\, ji
/yam ( .T
N 'IN
? "1
.41
' rl\ ? ? \` `J _ ' `a.t t,',I' •1 i f ; t 4- .) 1' ?I ?? 1. //:r J IN I
01' 1 nt1,t
\ - ? I I ` jl?if I' l
IN I
-' Y -'?%; ?`t ,,.?'. %\ ~%-' "ice _ ? /i ? ? -? ??1? ? ?- !!•I,I ?,`\\`,1\
r , ? ` L\L•, vi ,\ Ali I 1, 1 \ , ( {ij , ?J,j J
11 1,;;;x;1` ?, N
tA'
? . ? 1 ) f / / ?\\,\`\II It X11 X111. , t , a- _ , `??\ •`,,
?;?I! ?• j ? _- ??`I1; 1,11+,, ! ,, \ \ ` ?\\\, \\ ?,\,\ O ';
r/ .
!??/? ?•..'`_ '? '\ \?' III!` ? ? /_T 1 / ri?' `?''?l'. / ?/' _ -?
o ,'JIB 11`, i .? Lt 1`- \ ` 1• ?\ J; 1 \`. `\\ `t ,\ '\ ?,, \ / ? ,, •-. J 1
CL
VA4
,
fit
r-j'/ e3
10
•
.
•
IN,
• ` - - --_ _- •?\ ????,,\ ( ? ? •' ? i / ,r?`; iii ?.?? I I ??\\,?, •'_ - -L ?./
? f! - - i? _ '\ • 1 1 x;1';1,' ( 1 ? - , ? ?: _ _ _' - . =:.:`? /? ! '? I ? -,,
1 1 ` ? , \ \ \ 1 t\? '/ ,' fly \,
',(? •.. _--- --- U `\`• ,\? ,'` ,fir ?(? / / ?! ! ? ; j' _ _?- \
? ?\\ __ -----_-_ ?11 ` ',1, ;ili;l '' it tf??1 ,i ?!1 ? -'\•?? '\ 1.
/." ? /• ` / 111
.1 ? \ l l •? ? `-- ??.?/'fir/ '?/ '? ?\ \, i 1 ? 1 1.\?\`
\ \,l ? .?y _ .. '•\' \ ` rte. --- ? ' ` I\ ? t
1 R ?`- '? Z 1_ `f V

t
4. L
-
?y • ? ? _ - ?'?? ? , t/ (!-+ its _-
\?`? `'\ .i I- is f ?-?_-9` \\\ ?? \ •?r• ?1.???-,-?? - ? ? --.
?'? ? 1, / r '• _- -? \ Q \ \\ ' SL - 1r? _
\
r --
-
-
W
Z
4
a
I
s
l'
W
"OVI

51-
'l / ? V v n
a
I ? m 2
\ i i oS i
,
7Z -
l I N - \\\ \ \ \ \ I ( \
--1(311)
??-! :?., • , ")',?Ut?-'' _ -_ ? ?? ? ? _'/? -_. ? ?- -``'?-? ?__ . ? _?- __ ? .. X311) ;88•Z?ZI

,k,9 )
s s
z r N ?
m m ?
0
0

i
o
?m-
W
N
r
LL
0
N
1-
Z
4
I
W
N
1 IC... ".S ! li\ f _
,.?\` .`•?? ; ••'\? '\ \? ?? i ? \ \ \ ,, t r ' (t (i i I ? '/ ?? .' :: ? ? ? % f / ?-'???_ .' /mar'

Compensatory Mitigation
A mitigation plan has been developed to provide for a "no net loss' of wetland
habitat, value, and function to the extent feasible on this site. The type of
mitigation shown on the plan are described below generally fall under the
category of Creation and Enhancement.
Enhancement - Increasing one or more of the functions of an existing wetland by
manipulation of vegetation and/or hydrology. Enhancement Mitigation to
compensate for the proposed impacts to Jurisdictional Waters include the
following and is depicted on the General Permitting and Mitigation Plan :
Maintaining and supplementing hydrology to existing wetland area below
proposed dam by providing low flow weir. Wetland area disturbed by construction
below the dam will be restored and replanted with hydrophytic vegetation such as
bottomland hardwoods, shrubs, and herbaceous materials.
Creation - Construction of a wetland area where wetlands did not exist in recent
past.
This will be achieved by providing a wetland fringe and littoral zone of
approximately 1 Acre in conjunction with the development of the proposed ponds.
The area will be planted with hydrophytic vegetation including herbaceous
vegetation, and bottomland hardwoods and shrubs in non- fairway locations. A
plant list will be developed to select the appropriate vegetation according to
hydrological zone. The final aquatic bench plans and specifications will forwarded
to the USACE and NCDEM for approval. These littoral zones will be located in
relation to incoming drainage from golf course. Plant selection shall include those
plants which have strong nutrient removal capabilities.
All tributaries crossed with culverts will be designed to maintain sufficient flow.
The use of best management practices will be used as appropriate to mitigate
unavoidable impacts. Impacts from hazardous materials and other toxins to fish,
such as fuels, will be avoided by not permitting staging areas to be located near
tributaries or wetlands. Also, measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh
concrete from coming into contact with waters until the concrete has hardened.
Employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures will be specified to
avoid impacts to water quality.
Drainage from the golf course shall be designed to minimize direct drainage into
surface waters. Drainage from the maintenance area shall be directed to a wet
detention facility or bio-filter system.
1

r

u
0

0

1
W
w
N
C
0
N
0
J
C
0
U

W Z
O ? a
O
m

r

GENERAL NOTES: MINIMIZATION MEASURES
A) Lot areas strategically located to incorporate Jurisdictional Waters into the
boundaries between parcels or lots where feasible.
B) Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be mitigated as shown in the form of
enhancement and creation. Final mitigation plans shall be submitted to the
USACE and NCDEM for approval.
C) Wetland clearings when necessary for utility crossings, roads, and
temporary access to be combined into the same cleared area where feasible.
D) Wetlands to be clearly marked prior to construction to prevent accidental
damage to wetlands. Contractor to be held responsible for unauthorized wetland
damage not permitted according to plans and specifications. Preconstruction
meetings shall be held if necessary with representatives of the USACE and the
NCDEM.
F) Temporary construction access crossings shall be made from high ground
to high ground over channels which do have adjacent wetlands. Temporary
culverts will be provided to preserve existing natural drainage. Immediately after
completing construction, the channel will be restored to its natural vegetation.
' G) Wetlands to be incorporated in the design of individual golf holes -
strategically placed as a hazard. Wetlands to be hand cleared and re-vegetated
with suitable wetland species - no filling proposed except as indicated on plans at
' landing areas.

H) In order to stabilize stream banks, minimize runoff from the golf course and
maintain a travel corridor for wildlife, a minimum 25' (each side of a tributary)
development buffer is proposed around all jurisdictional waters. These will be
preserved in their natural state to the maximum extent possible with the exception
of utility and sewerline construction and unavoidable creek stream crossings . In
the golf course a minimum 30' natural or naturalistic edge or buffer will be
retained when adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. Manicured
areas of the golf course will end a 30' from the top of a stream bank and
disturbed areas within this buffer area will be replanted with native or acceptable
naturalistic vegetation. Impervious cover with the exception of golf cart paths,
walking paths and similar uses will not be permitted within 50' of any stream or
Duck Creek. The golf course drainage has bee designed so runoff flows into the
storm water management ponds to the maximum extent possible.
1) Road Crossings and other adjacent development will be designed to
minimize impacts to drainage or drainage pattern of depressional wetland areas.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

PLANS AND MONITORING

1

VIII. PLANS AND MONITORING
t Detailed plans for the mitigation areas will be further articulated from the plans
included in this document. These plans will be submitted to the Corps of
Engineers and the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for
approval. Plans will include :
Site Preparation Requirements
Vegetation Requirements
Tracking and Monitoring Requirements
' A monitoring program will be developed to monitor the mitigation areas to include:
1. Vegetation Parameters
' a. Species Composition and Abundance
b. Survival
c. Growth

Monitoring of vegetation will be conducted on an annual basis according to the
following general procedures.
A. Observation along designated transects and sample plot locations
B. Photographic documentation
C. Monitoring will take place on an annual basis in late summer to early fall
(August-September). Periodic site visits will be conducted for
maintenance, aesthetic purposes, and possible modifications to increase
survival rates.
D. Field data and Photography will be summarized in an annual report and
will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, NC Division of Environmental
Management and other interested agencies. At the end of the third year a
report will be prepared for review and to determine the need for future
monitoring or modifications.

1

n

APPENDICES

LEONARD S RINDNER -
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
February?-., 1995
Ms. Janice Nicholls
US Fish and Wildlife Service
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, NC 29806
Re: _ 400 Acre Residential Golf Course Development Site in Mecklenburg and Union
County east of Mint Hill.
Dear Ms. Nicholls:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Tom Scott, of B.V. Belk Investments, I am notifying the US
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the presence of endangered species which may be
affected by the project my client plans to develop. The proposed project is approximately
400 Acres and is a planned residential golf course community. In the future we may need
to apply for Section 404 Nationwide Permits. I have reviewed the USGS Quad maps at
the Natural Heritage Program Office at NCDEHNR in Raleigh and no protected species
or sensitive habitats were indicated on the project site at this time. We are aware however
that Schweinitz's Sunflower and the Carolina heelsplitter are both listed as endangered
species in both Mecklenburg and Union County and at this time we are requesting your
input to determine if additional survey information will be required to satisfy the
Nationwide Permit conditions. If so, your assistance is requested in defining the extents
of the study if possible.
I have included for your use a copy of the portion of the USGS Quad Map, a soils map
created from SCS Soil Survey which will help identify agricultural fields, woodland
areas, potential vegetation communities. Generally, the woodland areas are in various
stages of succession from tree harvesting and Hurricane Hugo damage. I have also
included an Approximate Wetlands Map which was based on site visits to ground-truth
potential wetland areas identified from topographic, soils, and county aerial photographs.
We are also in the process of conducting a Wetland Delineation at this time to more
accurately identify the wetland extents.

Ms. Janice Nicholls - USFWS
February 23, 1995
Page 2
We look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions about
the site based on my evaluation or need additional information. Also, we would also be
happy to meet with you or a representative of your office on the site if possible.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
9na n d n e r
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect '578
cc. Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc.
Mr. Tom Scott - B.V. Belk Investments

QPPS?J,?NT}OF ry?iy
United States Department of the Interior
- a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
CH 3 '?p9 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 31, 1995
Mr. Leonard S. Rindner
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27613

I

Dear Mr. Rindner:
Subject: Proposed construction of a residential golf course in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
?¦
PRIDE IN ?
AMERICA

In your letter of February 24, 1995 (received on March 17, 1995), you
requested information on federally endangered and threatened species that
could potentially be adversely affected by the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to your letter, this project will involve the construction of a
residential golf course community on a 400 acre tract southeast of
Charlotte. The tract presently consists of agricultural fields and
woodlands. Duck Creek runs through the project area and you are in the
process of delineating any associated wetland areas.
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential impacts this
project could have on: (1) Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), a federally listed endangered plant species, and several
Federal candidate plant species--Georgia aster (Aster georgianus),
He11er's trefoil (Lotus het ieri), Nest ronia (Nestroiiia un-lbei 1u1a), and
tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum); (2) the Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), a federally endangered freshwater mussel species,
and (3) on stream and wetland systems. Preference should be given to
construction techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and
impacts to these resources.
Helianthus schweinitzii is endemic to the upper piedmont of the
Carolinas, with all 22 known occurrences centered around Charlotte, North
Carolina; and Rock Hill, South Carolina. This species occurs in
relatively open habitats--early successional fields, forest ecotonal
margins, or forest clearings. It thrives in full sun but also grows in
the light shade of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Helianthus
schweinitzii generally occurs on soils characterized as moist to dryish
clays, clay-loans, or sandy-clay loams that often have a high gravel
content. The enclosed draft recovery plan for this species points out

1
the importance of soils--"The geology and soils of this area appear to be
an important determining factor in the occurrence of Schweinitz's
sunflower."
There are also several plant species that are Federal candidates for
listing that are known to occur in Mecklenburg County--Georgia aster
(Aster georgianus), Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri), Nestronia
(Nestronia umbe11u1a), and tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum). The
first three species are found in similar habitats: Aster georgianus is a
perennial that occurs in dry open woods along roadsides, woodland
borders, old fields, and pastures; Lotus helleri is an annual that occurs
in dry open woods, roadsides, and clearings over clay soils; and
Nestronia umbe11u1a is a root parasite frequently associated with pines
and occurs in upland forests and along wooded streams from the sandy
margins onto the adjacent slopes. Delphinium exaltatum occurs mostly
over mafic rock on grassy balls, glades, and rich woodlands.
It is the Service's opinion that the general project location has a
potential for the presence of two species in particular--Schweinitz's
sunflower and Heller's trefoil. An assessment of the soil survey map
shows areas within the proposed project corridor that have suitable soils
(e.g., Cecil sandy clay loam). Obviously, more information on vegetative
communities within the corridor and on habitats adjacent to the project
area would be useful to better assess the potential for the presence of
these plant species.
' Indeed, it would be helpful to provide more descriptive information on
the quality of any upland habitats on the site in future requests of this
nature. For example, forested areas with a fairly dense understory and
power line rights-of-way that have not been maintained and are overgrown
are generally not favorable to Helianthus schweinitzii, a sun loving
species. However, this species has a thick rhizome that may allow it to
persist in these later successional stage habitats. We offer the
following additional information on habitat preferences that may assist
you in determining whether or not to conduct a survey on the subject
property for Helianthus schweinitzii.

C

Geology and soils appear to be an important determining factor
in the occurrence of this species. Soils tend to be shallow and
clayey, and often contain large quantities of slaty rock
fragments. Helianthus schweinitzii is known from a variety of
soil types including Iredell, Enon, Cecil, Misenheimer, Gaston,
and Zion. The primary factors in all the soils appears to be
they are thin, occur on upland interstream flats or gentle
slopes, and are clayey in texture.
The habitat of this species tends to be dominated by members of
the families Asteraceae, Fabaceae, and Poaceae. Typical
associates include Andropogon gerardii, Andropogon spp., Aster
concolor, Aster georgianus, A. Iinariifolius, Baptista
tinctoria, Coreopsis major, Desmodium lineatum, Helianthus
atrorubens, H. divaricatus, H. microcephalus, Juniperus
virginianus var. virginiana, Lotus helleri, Muhlenbergia

capillaris, Quercus stellata, Q. marilandica, Silene
caroliniana, Solidago nemoralis, and S. ptarmicoides,
Lasmigona decorata prefers shaded areas either in a ponded portion of a
small stream or in runs along steep banks with a moderate current.
Primary habitat is waters less than three feet deep with a soft mud,
muddy sand, or sandy-gravel substrate. Its current distribution is
limited to portions of two streams--Goose Creek and Waxhaw Creek--and a
small river originating out of rural areas in Union County.
Historically, the Carolina heelsplitter was found in creeks, streams,
rivers, and ponds (most likely millponds) in the Charlotte/Mecklenburg
area. Habitat and water quality degradation resulting from impoundments;
stream channelization; dredging; sand mining; sewage effluents; and
agricultural, forestry and development activities are believed to have
contributed to this species' decline. The three extant populations are
by no means secure and are within rapidly developing areas.
In accordance with the Act it is the responsibility of the appropriate
Federal regulatory agency to review its activities or programs and to
identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitat. If it is determined that these
proposed activities may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated. Because you anticipate applying for nationwide permit
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it is the Corps
responsibility to make the final determination as to whether endangered
or threatened species will be impacted by the project.
Please note that candidate plant species are not legally protected under
' the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them. If surveys are conducted for Helianthus schweinitzii,
we also encourage surveys for the candidate plant species. Regarding
Lasmigona decorata, we must point out that Duck Creek and Goose Creek
' flow together near the project area. We request that additional
information be provided on specific project plans so that we can assess
the possible adverse impacts to this species.
t Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-95-057.
S i ncerelLy-----
Brian P. Cole
' Field Supervisor

11

' cc:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
' P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611

C

7

7
7

Environmental Assessment - Plant Communities and Endangered Species
Sycamore Creek Development - Mecklenburg/Union Cos.
April 1995
by
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.
with
John T. Soule, B.A. and James Barnwell, B.A.
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program
Environmental Assessment - Plant Communities
With Comments on Endangered Species
Sycamore Creek Development - Mecklenburg/Union Cos., NC
The Sycamore Creek Development of 406 acres straddles the Mecklenburg-Union Co.
lines, north of US 74. It is bounded on the north by Fairview Rd. (NC 218) and on the east by
Rock Hill Church Rd. The western and southern boundaries follow property lines and are not
fixed features. The field work was performed on April 6-7, 1995.
Most of the area has been disturbed recently and is in an early to middle stage of
succession. There is only one decent forest on the site. The vegetative cover for most of the are
is general mixture of species characterized by dry situations, with some exceptions along the
two creeks and one upland depression. The dry site species are: White oak (Quercus albs) ,
Pignut hickory (Carya glabra), Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), Post oak (Q. stellata) and
Blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) over a subcanopy of Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Red
maple (Acer rubrum), Winged elm (Ulmus alata) and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana).
Shrubs are: Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), Blueberry (V. vacillans), Yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens) and Greenbrier (Smilax spp.). This forest type is primarily in
Union Co. (southern portion), as there is a change in geology almost paralleling the county
lines. The Mecklenburg Co. center section is more mesic, with the species added: Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) and more Shortleaf pine.
Specific Comments on Areas
Area A
This appears to be an abandoned field, with furrows remaining. It is now dominated by
Shortleaf and Virginia pine (P. virginiana) with an average DBH of 8-10 ", with a succession
of smaller Sweetgum and Yellow poplar over Red cedar, Red maple and Dogwood (Corpus
florida). Shrubs are Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). The vegetation is fairly open, but there is little open soil, having rather a dense
cover of pine needles.
Area B
This area is open pasture and woodland pasture, severely over grazed.
Area C
This area appears to have been used in the past as a hay field. It is an open, grassed fielc
with scattered clumps of grasses. It is not abandoned, and shows signs of recently being cut, so
the vegetation has been controlled by management.
Area D
This area is the best hardwood forest on the site. The canopy species are: White and Red
oak (Q. rubra), Pignut hickory and Southern red oak (Q. falcata). The subcanopy is Dogwood any

' Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) primarily with some Black cherry (Prunus serotina), Sassafras
(Sassafras albidum) and Sugar maple (Acer saccharum ssp. floridanum). Shrubs are:
Strawberry bush (Euonymous americanus) and Blueberry. Even with the hardwood nature of
' this area, the herb layer is very scarce. There is a dense layer of leaf litter covering an organic
soil layer of 4-6 inches. This indicates a lack of disturbance for quite some time. On the west
side of this area, adjacent to Area B is a series of 6+ prospecting pits.
t Area E
t This is a stand dominated by Shortleaf and Virginia pine and Sweetgum on top of a hill,
probably resulting from previous timbering activity. The subcanopy and shrubs are: Dogwood,
Red maple, Sweetgum and Yellow poplar.
' Area F
' This is an upland depression with a canopy of Willow oak (Q. phellos), Sweetgum,
American elm (Ulmus americana) and Red maple. Shrubs are Cowitch Vine (Campsis radicans)
and Greenbrier. Leaf litter is very dense, so there is very little herbaceous growth. There was
no Isoetes present.
Area G
' This is an old field in succession, with young Shortleaf pine and Sweetgum in the
northern portion. There is an aggressive growth of Groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia),
Blackberry (Rubusspp.) and Broomsedge (Andropcgon spp.). This field is the most likely to
' have Lotus as a species of concern, but no old stems with leaves were found. Nor was there any
evidence of old stems of Schweintz's sunflower.
' Area H
This is an active hay field, without weedy species.
' Area I
' This is a fallow field, with some parts having been turned to produce an uneven surface.
The woody succession is Groundsel tree, over a dense growth of grasses. The succession has not
been developed to the stage of having Broomsedge. There is very little bare soil evident. In the
' northwest corner of Area I, just south of Duck Creek is a White oak that is 34" DBH. Adjacent
to this tree is a open pit garbage dump.

Area J
This is a wetland area, apparently with ground seepage or a small spring to maintain the
moisture. The canopy is Willow oak, Sweetgum and Red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), with a
few Shortleaf pine. The shrubs are Dogwood, Red cedar and Winged elm. Shrubs are Groundsel
tree, Deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), Viburnum (Viburnum spp.), Blackberry and Japanese
honeysuckle. Wind throws have opened up the canopy, encouraging a weedy vegetation cover.
On the northwest boundary, between Areas I and J, there are some large trees. One Southern red
oak is 34" DBH.
Comments on Endangered Species.
Since the field work was performed in early spring, there is not a potential for
identifying all the species of concern, particularly since the new growth of the fall blooming
species is just beginning. However, old stems of some species can be identified.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service List
1. Helianthus schweintzii - The old stems of this species are persistent and can be recognized
from the dried leaves and rough stems. No stems or leaves of this species were found in the ope
fields or margins of fields and woodlands (Areas C, H and 1).
2. Lotus helleri - The stems of this species persist, and the branching pattern is recognizable
on old stems. No stems were found in the survey of the disturbed fields. From our familiarity
with this species in this area, this site just does not "feel" like a potential site for Lotus.
3. Aster georgianus - This clasping leaved plant can be recognized by the pattern of the veins o
the lower surface of dried leaves. None of this species was evident.
4. Nestronia umbellua - There were no opposite-leaf, low-growing shrubs noted. All shrubs c
this type had alternate leaves, e.g. Blueberries.
5. Delphinium exaltatum - The only site that could possible support this species is the rich,
organic soil with the hardwood forest cover (Area D). just south of Fairview Rd. There was no
evidence of new growth that appeared to be `larkspur' type. Possibly this species will need a
survey later in the season.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program List
Mecklenburg Co.
6. Anemone berlandieri - The rocky outcrop habitat was not present, and is in flower now. It
was not observed.
7. Anemone caroliniana - This species is in flower now, it was not observed.
8. Botrychium jenmanii - The woods were dry, except along the streams, but this is too early
note this species.
9. Cardamine dissecta - This species is in flower presently, it was not found.
10. Carex projecta - The habitat for this species was not available.
11. Dodecatheon meadia va r. meadia - This species would have been noticeable along the
streams, but was not present.
12. Echinacea laevigata - The habitat for this species did not appear to be present.
13. Gnaphalium helleri var. helleri - No Rabbit tobacco stems were found.

' 14. Hexalectris spicata - The habitat for this late summer blooming species did not appear to be
present, and the pH of the soil was very acid.
' Union Co.
15. Aster laevis var. concinnus - This species is fall-blooming and would require a search later
in the season.
16. Aster mirabilis - This species also blooms in the fall, but the wooded slopes and alluvial
' woods of its habitat were not present. The creeks are deeply entrenched and there is little open
slope and floodplain.

17. Baptisia albescens - There was no young growth of any baptisia species noted.
18. Coelorachis cylindrica - It is too early in the season to recognize this species.
19. Helianthus laevigatus - It is too early in the season to distinguish this species from
Helianthus microcephalus. However, no smooth-stemmed sunflowers were noted, although
there may be some. We did note the presence of H. atrorubens.
20. Isoetes virginica - No quillworts were found in the upland depression.
21. Porteranthus stipulatus - This species should be evident in the vegetative form at this time
of year. No plants were found.
------ ---- -----------
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.

•. ; Sycamore Creek G"
Scale: 11, = 1 000
a
4.4 21
-lot
?... -?..._, .E • \ :?: ,HIV ? // .i
01 .00
r+ DO 650
??..
.??d ti \ ???? ?? ` ? w? Cam' !?' ? ( , ?n '-••'- ' l
J. ' 609 `.
roo
650 .YI - %.? (1 ?? .•1?????i

r
' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER QUALITY
SYCAMORE CREEK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
' DUCK CREEK DRAINAGE
' MECKLENBURG AND UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for Mr. Leonard Rindner,
Environmental Planning Consultant
by
Edward F. Menhinick
Professor of Biology
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
24 April, 1995

STREAM STUDIES
This first part of the report describes the characteristics, water quality and organisms of stre,
in the area of the proposed Sycamore development, and of Duck Creek downstream of the
proposed development. The streams were sampled on March 19 and 26, 1995. Stream disch
was calculated according to Embody's formula. The Wentworth grain size was used for inorg
sediments. Water analysis followed the EPA manual 625/6-74-003a, "Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes". Turbidity was measured with a Hach 2100A turbidimeter;
conductivity was measured with a YSI Model 33/S-C-T meter and corrected for temperature
following Standard Methods; pH was measured with a Accumet 1003 digital pH meter; oxyge
was measured with a YSI Model 58 oxygen meter. BOD was determined with the YSI mete
with dilutions based on EPA specifications. Fishes were collected with a Smithroot Type VI'
Electrofisher. Fish nomenclature and arrangement follow the American Fishery Society Spec
Publication Number 20, except that Hybopsis is considered as a genus, rather than a subgeni
of Notropis. In the listing, the common name of each fish is given, followed by the number of
individuals collected given in parenthesis.
To evaluate the effect of the proposed development on tributaries and on Duck Creek,
streams were was sampled at seven locations. (see enclosed map).
Station #1. A small tributary to the northern branch of Duck Creek was sampled along NC
218, Fairview Drive, 4.3 mi WSW of Brief, 0.5 mi NW of the Union County line. The 80 m
floodplain was dominated with poplar, sweet-um, Virginia pine, dogwood, beech and oak.
The partially channelized bank was 110 cm high, had an angle of 90°, and a lower width of 12,
cm. giving a cross sectional area of approximately 1.3 square meters. The bank was 80%
vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation plus moss, honeysuckle, wild onions, and
muscadine grape vines. 10% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 30 crr
typical depth was 5 cm; and discharge was 0.1 L/sec. The stream consisted of 80% stagnant
pools. There was a moderate blockage of roots and sticks. Substrate was of cobbles to
coarse sand; firm mud was present in many areas. There was no bedload. DO was only 3.4
ppm; BOD was 9.3 ppm; conductivity was 149 gmho at 20°; Secchi visibility clear to the
bottom, approximately 50 cm; turbidity was 33 NTU; temperature was 13°C; pH was 6.9; an(
alkalinity was 64 ppm. Approximately 30 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was
about 20 m2 . Signs of pollution included stagnant conditions and a slight tan color. No fishe
or other aquatic organisms were taken. In summary, this stream consisted of a series of
semi-stagnant pools connected by a small stream. It had low DO, high BOD, low pH and
high alkalinity (an unusual combination). It was obviously a temporary stream and would be
expected to essentially dry up after a few more days of dry weather.
Station #2. The north branch of Duck Creek was sampled at NC 218, Fairview Road, 4.1 mi
WSW of Brief, 0.1 mi NW of the Union county line. The indistinct floodplain was probably
about 150 m wide. It contained sycamore, sweet gum, cedar, holly, Virginia pine, and had ar

Q
1

.I
i

-._r
understory of privet, honeysuckle and blackberry. The unchannelized bank was 80 cm high,
had an angle of 60°, and a lower width of 220 cm. giving a cross sectional area of
approximately 2.5 square meters. The bank was 90% vegetated and contained floodplain
trees plus river birch, mosses, grasses, honeysuckle and blackberry. 60% of the stream
received direct sunlight. Typical width was 220 cm, typical depth was 15 cm, and discharge
was 16 L/sec. The stream contained 80% clear shallow pools. There was a moderate
blockage from bounders and vines. Substrate varied from bedrock and boulders to coarse
sand; fine sand occurred in stiller areas, and organic floc and algae were common on rocks an
undisturbed areas. DO was 10.2 ppm; BOD was 0.7 ppm; conductivity was 101 µmho at 20`
Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom, approximately 60 cm; turbidity was only 13 NTU;
temperature was 12°C; pH was 7.1; and alkalinity was 42 ppm. Approximately 90 m of
stream were sampled; sampling area was about 200 m2 . The only sign of pollution was a
slight milky color of the water. The following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (8),
highback chub (8), bluehead chub (16), redlip shiner (2), creek chub (9), creek chubsucker
(2), pirate perch (10), redbreast sunfish (11), green sunfish (1), tessellated darter (11),
Cambarus crayfish (3), dusky salamander (1), and two-lined salamander (2). No molluscs
were seen. One of the male green sunfishes was in breeding coloration. Three adult helmid
riffle beetles were taken under stones under the water. In summary, this was an attractive
clear rocky brook with an unusually diverse fish fauna for such a small stream.
Station #3. A small tributary to the south branch of Duck Creek was next sampled near the
entrance to the Tall Oaks Trailer Park along Co. 1539, Hill Road, 4.1 mi WSW of Brief and 0
mi SW of NC 218. There was no floodplain; surrounding vegetation consisted of beech,
Virginia pine, black oak, winged elm, hickory, and cedar - species not typical of a bottomland
forest. The unchannelized bank was 70 cm high, had an angle of 60°, and a lower width of 8(
cm, giving a cross sectional area of approximately 1.3 square meters. The bank was 90%
vegetated and contained surrounding vegetation plus a large amount of moss and some
honeysuckle. 40% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 50 cm, typical
depth was 15 cm; discharge was only 0.3 L/sec. The stream contained 90% slow-flowing
pools. There was a heavy blockage of sticks and leaves. Substrate was gravel to fine sand
and there was a layer of fine silt on everything. Spirogyra algae were common on underwater
objects and Juncus rush was present near the bridge. There was no bedload. DO was 6.8
ppm; BOD was 1.4 ppm; conductivity was 63 µmho at 20°; Secchi visibility 30 cm.; turbidity
was 22 NTU; temperature was 12°C; pH was 6.3, unusually acidic; and alkalinity was 20
ppm, unusually low. There was no sign of pollution. Approximately 20 m of stream were
sampled, and another 30 meters were observed for fishes and molluscs; sampling area was
about 300 m2 . Only one species of fish was collected: green sunfish (12), and these were all
taken in a plunge basin below the culvert passing under the road. One of these was 13 cm;
one was 8 cm, 2 were 5 cm, and the remaining 8 were only 3 cm total length. No molluscs or
crayfishes were seen, although it was expected that crayfishes would be present in the pool
In summary, this stream was undoubtedly temporary, but the pool below the road probably
contained water even during dryer times of the year.
2

' Station #4. Another tributary to to the south branch of Duck Creek was sampled along Co.
1539, Hill Rd., just south of Co. 1541, Russell Road, across the road from a goat farm, 4.5 mi.
' WSW of Brief. The indistinct 150 m floodplain contained a heavily grazed goat farm upstream
and a thinned lowland forest below which was dominated with black gum, ash, cedar, white
oak, dogwood Virginia pine and had an understory of honeysuckle. The unchannelized bank
was 150 cm high, had an angle of 80°, and a lower width of 130 cm. giving a cross sectional
area of approximately 2.3 square meters. The bank was 40% vegetated and contained
floodplain vegetation plus mosses, lichens and honeysuckle. Only 30% of the stream received
' direct sunlight. Typical width was 130 cm, typical depth was 30 cm, and discharge was 0.7
L/sec. The stream contained 95% pools; there was a moderate blockage of logs and sticks.
' Substrate varied form bedrock to fine gravel; Podostemone riverweed was common. There
was no bedload. DO was 9.0 ppm; BOD was 0,8 ppm; conductivity was 81 gmho at 20°;
Secchi visibility 50 cm; turbidity was 17 NTU; temperature was 16°C; pH was 7.0; and
' alkalinity was 26 ppm. Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was
about 130 m2 . Signs of pollution included a large amount of bubbles and a cloudy color. Only
' three species of fishes were collected: creek chub (3), redbreast sunfish (1), and Carolina
darter (3). Also taken were 9 Procambarus crayfishes and 4 Rana frog tadpoles. In
summary, this small tributary to Duck Creek had satisfactory water chemistry. It was
' undoubtedly temporary and is represented by a series of isolated pools during dryer times of
the year. It contained an unusual assemblage of fishes: I had not taken creek chubs and
1 Carolina darters together before.
Station #5. A small woodland tributary to the south branch Duck Creek was sampled along
' Co. 1540, Rock Hill Road, 5.0 mi. WSW of Brief. The indistinct 150 m floodplain was
dominated by poplar, cedar and virginia pine. The unchannelized bank was 80 cm high, had an
angle of 50°, and a lower width of 300 cm. giving a cross sectional area of approximately 2.8
square meters. The bank was 30% vegetated and contained floodplain vegetation plus
grasses, mosses and herbs. 40% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was
200 cm; typical depth was 20 cm; and discharge was 2 L/sec. The stream contained 30%
shallow pools. There was a moderate blockage of logs and fallen trees. Substrate varied
from bedrock to coarse sand; occasional boulders were present. There was no bedload. DO
was 9.5 ppm; BOD was 1.2 ppm; conductivity was 128 gmho at 20°; Secchi visibility was
clear to the bottom, approximately 50 cm; turbidity was 16 NTU; temperature was 13°C; pH
' was 7.4; and alkalinity was 52 ppm. Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling
area was about 200 m2 . Other than a moderate siltation there was no sign of pollution. The
' following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (11), highback chub (5), bluehead chub (1),
highfin shiner (1), creek chub (22), white sucker (1), redbreast sunfish (13), bluegill (1),
Carolina darter (1), and tessellated darter (9). Goniobasis snails were abundant, and 3
' Procambarus crayfishes were taken. In summary, this moderately silted tributary to lower
Duck Creek had good water quality and contained typical headwater species (rosyside dace,
' creek chub, bluehead chub, tessellated darter and redbreast sunfish) plus several additional
species indicating that it is grading into a medium-sized bottomland stream.

Station #6. The main branch of the south fork of Duck Creek was sampled along Fairview
Road just east of Russell Road, 3.5 mi WSW of Brief. The indistinct 80 in floodplain
contained white oak, red oak, hickory, cedar, and sweet gum, and had an understory of
honeysuckle. A large number of fallen trees from Hurricane Hugo were still present. The
unchannelized bank was 150 cm high, had an angle of 60°, and a lower width of 370 cm giving
a cross sectional area of approximately 7 square meters. The bank was 40% vegetated and
contained floodplain vegetation plus large ferns, mosses, grasses and mixed herbs. Only 1501(
of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 300 cm; typical depth was 20 cm;
and discharge was 35 L/sec. The stream contained 90% fast-flowing pools. A long 40 in pool
blocked up by a fallen tree was occurred 100 m below the road, and most fishes were taken
from it. There was a moderate blockage of fallen trees and boulders. Substrate varied from
bedrock and boulders to gravel; medium sand occurred in stiller areas. Organic floc and
Podostemone riverweed were common. There was no bedload. DO was 11.4 ppm; BOD
was 0.9 ppm; conductivity was 104 gmho at 17°; Secchi visibility was 100 cm and turbidity
was 7.5 NTU (unusually clear); temperature was 16°C; pH was 7.6; and alkalinity was 35
ppm. There were no signs of pollution, but the complete absence of molluscs was unusual,
especially since present farther downstream. Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled;
sampling area was about 200 m2 . The following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (18),
highback chub (2), bluehead chub (7), whitemouth shiner (1), highfin shiner (7), creek chub
(7), white sucker (2), creek chubsucker (7), black bullhead (2); pirate perch (4), redbreast
sunfish (8), green sunfish (2), bluegill (3), and tessellated darter (20). Also taken were
Cambarus crayfishes (7), Procambaracs crayfishes (7), and dusky salamanders (2). No
molluscs (even Asiatic clams) were seen. The black bullhead was unexpected as it usually
occurs in slow stagnant pools of lowland streams. In summary, this section of Duck Creek
was unusually clear, unusually cold, had a high pH, and had an unusually high fish diversity
for a stream of its size. A stream with these conditions would normally have a few snails,
but none appeared to be present.
Station #7. The main stream of Duck Creek was sampled at NC 601, 0.8 mi. SSW of Brief,
approximately 3 straight line miles downstream from the previous station. The indistinct
floodplain was probably about 300 m wide and contained poplar, red oak, cedar, Virginia pine,
box elder, sycamore and sweet gum and had an understory of privet and honeysuckle. The
unchannelized bank was 200 cm high, had an angle of 60°, and a lower width of 500 cm, giving
a cross sectional area of approximately 12 square meters. The bank was 40% vegetated and
contained floodplain trees plus grasses, mosses, ferns, honeysuckle, violets, and mixed
herbs. 40% of the stream received direct sunlight. Typical width was 400 cm, typical depth
was 30 cm, and discharge was 80 L/sec. The stream contained 40% fast-flowing pools. Ther
was a beaver dam approximately 1 in high 80 m upstream from the bridge. A second lake
which began about 20 m below the bridge extended downstream as far as we could see. It is
not known if this was the upper end of the dam seen in the next station, or if it was from
another beaver dam. Substrate varied from a layered angular slate bedrock to gravel; floc an(
4

Podostemone riverweed were common. There was no bedload. DO was 10.1 ppm; BOD
was 1.2 ppm; conductivity was 120 µmho at 18°; Secchi visibility 70 cm; turbidity was 7.5
NTU; temperature was 13.5°C; pH was 7.5; and alkalinity was 41 ppm. Approximately 100 m
of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 200 m2 . There was no visible pollution.
The following fishes were collected: rosyside dace (7), highback chub (4), bluehead chub
(47), whitemouth shiner (10), highfin shiner (8), redlip shiner (1), creek chub (9), creek
chubsucker (6), redbreast sunfish (4), green sunfish (1), bluegill (1), fantail darter (8), and
tessellated darter (12). Also taken were Cambarus crayfishes (2), and Procambarus
crayfishes (2). Asiatic clams and Physella snails were common, and the dead shell of one
unionid clam (Elliptio raveneli?) was collected on a gravel bank below the bridge. In
summary, this section of Duck Creek had almost identical water chemistry and fish fauna to
the upstream location, however, two different mollusks were taken here.
Station #8. Duck creek was last observed at Co. 1600, New Hope Road, just above its
confluence with Goose Creek. The creek at this location consisted of a long heavily silted
pool that stretched at least 100 m upstream, and about 100 m downstream where a 5 foot
concrete dam blocked the flow. The stream was too deep to sample. This dam may have
blocked the water all the way upstream to the previous station. It is discussed in the section
on environmental impacts.
Station #9. Duck Creek joins Goose Creek just above Co. 1547, Brief Road, 1.7 mi SE of
Brief, 0.6 mi above its junction with Rocky River. This stream was sampled at Brief Road as
part of a regular program between June, 1993, and October, 1994, during which time 28
species of fishes were taken: rosyside dace (1) satinfin shiner (75) whitefin shiner (55),
highback chub (24), bluehead chub (188), whitemouth shiner (12), highfin shiner (12), redlip
shiner (67), spottail shiner (8), sandbar shiner (5), creek chub (14), white shiner (1), creek
chubsucker (1), silver redhorse (6), brassy jumprock (13), brown bullhead (3), flat bullhead
(9), margined madtom (2), speckled killifish (8), pirate perch (1), mosquitofish (1), redbreast
sunfish (45), green sunfish (5), bluegill (30), largemouth bass (3), fantail darter (27),
tessellated darter (77), and Piedmont darter (1). Also taken were Cambarus crayfishes (2),
Procambarus crayfishes (17), and Planorbella snails (15). The large number of species
reflects a greater sampling effort, a larger stream, and a more diverse fauna for a stream of its
size. In summary, this section of Goose/Duck Creek has a diverse fauna. Unionid clams,
including the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter occur in Goose Creek.
5
COMMENTS ON SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE STUDY AREA
Forty species of fishes have been reported over the last 30 years from streams of north-
central Union county (the "study area"), or might be expected to occur there based on
proximity of nearby collections. Seventeen of these species, as indicated on the following
annotated checklist, were collected from Duck Creek above its confluence with Goose Creek.
In this listing, the terms "abundant", "common", "uncommon", and "rare" have been used to
indicate relative abundance. "Abundant" means that the species has been found in at least
50% of the collections of the area, "common" refers to 20-50% of the collections, "uncommon"
to 10-20% of the collections, and "rare" to less than 10%. The terms "possibly" has been
used if the species has not been reported from the area but might be expected to occur there
based upon proximity in neighboring areas. The terms "creeks", "streams", and "rivers" hav
been used to designate approximate sizes of streams. "Creeks" refer to smaller streams,
"streams" to medium sized streams, and "rivers" to larger streams. One species of fish of
special status occurs in the area. Because of its relative rarity and limited distribution, the
Carolina darter, Etheostoma collis is listed as "Special Concern" by the state. The listing of
fish species, their relative abundance, habitat preference, and relative sensitivity to pollution
follows.
Anguillidae - freshwater eels
American eel. Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur). The American eel is probably rare in creeks,
streams, and rivers of the area. During the day it usually is under stones and banks in pool
areas. It feeds at night and is usually caught with trot lines or traps. Its flesh is white and
excellent. The American eel is highly resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Clupeidae - herrings
Gizzard shad. Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur). The gizzard shad occurs rarely in slow
areas of rivers and streams, and in lakes. This plankton-feeder is an important forage spec
when small; when mature, it is too large for a forage fish and competes with game species f
plankton. The gizzard shad is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution and is subject to mas
mortalities, usually in the winter, from unknown causes. It was not taken in this study.
Cyprinidae - minnows and carps
Rosyside dace. Clinostomacs funduloides 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 taken at 4 of the 7 stations.
Satinfin shiner. Cyprinella analostana Girard. The satinfin shiner is common in streams of
6

' the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Highback chub. Hybopsis hypsinotus (Cope). The highback chub is common in fast flowing
streams of the area. This bottom-feeder is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. This
species was taken at 4 of the 7 stations.
' Bluehead chub. Nocomis leptocephalus (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 at 4 of the
7 stations.
' Golden shiner. Notemigonus crysoleucas (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. It was not taken in this study.
Whitemouth shiner. Notropis alborus Hubbs & Raney. The whitemouth shiner occurs
abundantly in the riffle areas of swift creeks and streams of the area. It is moderately
' sensitive to pollution. This species was taken at 2 of the 7 stations.
Highfin shiner. Notropis altipinnis (Cope). The hghfin shiner is common in creeks of the
area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species was taken at 3 of the 7 stations.
Redlip shiner. Notropis chiliticus (Cope). The redlip shiner is abundant in streams and
creeks of the area. It is an important forage species where abundant. It is resistant to
pollution. This species was taken at 2 of the 7 stations.
Spottail shiner. Notropcs hudsoncus (Clinton). The spottail shiner is uncommon in stream
and rivers of the area. This is an important forage fish for large stream species. It is
moderately resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
' Creek chub. Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill). The creek chub is common in creeks and
s
streams of the area. This important forage fish is resistant to pollution. This species was
' taken from 5 of the 7 stations.
Catostomidae - suckers
White sucker. Catostomus com
mersonc (Lacepede). The white sucker is common in the
t pool areas of streams and creeks of the area. This coarse food fish is resistant to pollution.
This species was taken at 2 of the 7 stations.
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. This species was taken at 3 of the 7 stations.
Silver redhorse. Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque). The silver redhorse is probably rare in
rivers and streams of the area. It migrates in early spring to clear headwater streams for
breeding. This coarse food fish is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken it
this study.
Shorthead redhorse. Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur). The shorthead redhorse is
possibly rare in rivers of the area. This coarse food fish is intermediate in sensitivity to
pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Smallfin redhorse. Moxostoma robustum (Cope). The smallfin redhorse is rare in streams of
the area. This coarse food fish is moderately sensitive to pollution. It was not taken in this
study.
Ictaluridae - catfishes
Snail bullhead. Ameiurus brunneus (Jordan). The snail bullhead is possibly rare in rivers
and streams of the area. This species has recently been separated from the flat bullhead and
its distribution is consequently poorly known. It is probably moderately sensitive to
pollution. It was not taken in this study.
White catfish. Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus). The white catfish is possibly rare 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 not taken in this study.
Black bullhead. Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque). The black bullhead occurs uncommonly 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. I
is resistant to pollution. This species was taken at 1 of the 7 stations.
Yellow bullhead. Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur), The yellow bullhead is rare in the study area.
Most previous Piedmont records probably refer to the brown bullhead which has often been
confused with the yellow bullhead. The flesh is fair to poor, but this species provides sport a
it readily takes cut bait and dough balls. It is resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this
study.
Brown bullhead. Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur). The brown bullhead occurs uncommonly in
rivers and streams of the area. This species is readily caught by cane pole fishermen using
8

' worms, cut bait, or dough balls; the flesh is very tasty when taken from unpolluted waters. It
is resistant to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Flat bullhead. Ameiurus 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 not taken in this study.
' Margined madtom. Noturus insignis (Richardson). The margined madtom is uncommon in
streams and less numerous in creeks of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution.
It was not taken in this study.
' Esocidae - pikes
Chain pickerel. Esox niger Lesueur. The chain pickerel possibly occurs rarely in clean, quiet,
weedy creeks and streams of the area. It is a popular game fish. Its flesh is bony but sweet
and of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this
study.
Aphredoderidae - pirate perches
' Pirate Perch. A phredoderu
s sayanus (Gilliams). The pirate perch is common in pool areas of
streams and creeks of the area. Its abundance makes it an important forage fish in the
Coastal Plain. It is resistant to pollution. This species was taken at 2 of the 7 stations.
' Cyprinodontidae - killifishes
Speckled kIllifish. Fundulus rathbuni Jordan & Meek. The speckled killifish is possibly rare
in moderately fast streams and creeks of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to
pollution. It was not taken in this study.
' Poeciliidae - live bearers
' Mosquitofish. Gambusia holbrooki Girard. The mosquitofish is common in still, weedy
backwater 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. It was not taken in this study.
' Centrarchidae - sunfishes
Redbreast sunfish. Lepomis actritits (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 taken at 5 of the 7 stations.
Green sunfish. Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque. The green sunfish is common 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 taken at 4
the 7 stations.
Pumpkinseed. Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus). The pumpkinseed occurs uncommonly 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. It was not taken in this study.
Warmouth. Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier). The warmouth is common 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. It was not taken in this study.
Bluegill. Lepomis macrochirus 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, i
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. This species was taken at 3 of the 7
stations.
Redear sunfish. Lepomis microlophus (Gunther). The redear sunfish has been introduced
from Mississippi drainage streams into farm ponds of the area and occurs rarely 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. It was not taken 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 not taken in this study.
Black crappie. Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur). The black crappie is probably rare in
streams and rivers of the area. It is an excellent game fish with fine flesh. It is intermediat
in sensitivity to pollution. It was not taken in this study.
Percidae - perches
Carolina darter. Etheostoma collis (Hubbs & Cannon). The Carolina darter has been
reported as uncommon in creeks of the area. This elusive little darter apparently prefers
10
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 taken at 2
of the 7 stations.
Fantail darter. Etheostoma flabellare Rafinesque. The fantail darter is common in the riffle
areas of streams and creeks of the area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. This species
' was taken at 1 of the 7 stations.
Tessellated darter. Etheostoma olmstedi Storer. The tessellated darter is abundant in the
riffle areas of streams and creeks in the area. It is resistant to pollution. This species was
taken at 4 of the 7 stations.
' Piedmont darter. Percina crassa (Jordan and Copeland). The Piedmont darter is rare in
rivers and streams of the study area. This species is probably moderately resistant to
' pollution. It was not taken in this study.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Discharge and runoff. Discharge or flow refers to the volume of water passing a given poi.
per time and is here expressed in liters per second (there are 3.8 liters per gallon, and 28.3
liters per cubic foot). Homes. Construction of homes in the Sycamore Creek project will
undoubtedly have a significant effect on discharge both in the tributaries in the area, and of
Duck Creek downstream from the area. The extent of the discharge will depend on the
amount of land which is disturbed at any one time. After construction when grasses and
other plants are well established, discharge will decrease but will remain higher than pre-
construction levels because of runoff from the roofs of homes and roads, and increased runof
of lawns compared with that of wooded areas or fallow fields. These changes will also resu
in an increase in the sediment load of the stream because transport is related to velocity
squared, and velocity is related to discharge. Runoff should be minimized by clearing only
areas immediately needed and by seeding bare areas as soon as possible so that vegetatio
may be reestablished. Golf course. Because a large area is totally cleared during the
construction of golf courses, discharge could increase dramatically during heavy storms. On
the area is vegetated, this would be greatly reduced, but during heavy rains after the grounc
becomes saturated it could still be a major contributor to flooding. I recommend that bridge!
on streams draining the area be checked to ascertain that they can handle anticipated
increases. Lakes constructed on the golf course will do much to average variations in
discharge. Treatment plant. I understand that the effluent from the treatment plant will be
applied to the golf course as a land application. During dryer times of the year, the course
should absorb most of the effluent. However, during wetter times of the year when the
ground is at or near saturation, this discharge will enter the runoff. What alternatives have
been investigated to handle this effluent? Will it be discharged directly into the stream?
Siltation. Duck Creek has moderate amounts of siltation. Such siltation harms streams by
covering areas where food chain organisms live, by covering fish eggs, by covering habitats
rocks, and by filling pool areas - one of the most important habitats of fishes. Most of this
siltation probably comes from residential and agricultural development in the drainage area.
Homes. Construction of homes in the Sycamore development will result in a large increase
the silt load of the recipient streams. Once vegetation becomes established, however, this
load should greatly decrease and may reach near-preconstruction levels. Because most of t
fish species present are relatively tolerant of siltation, and unionid clams are essentially ab
siltation from a well planned project should have only moderate short time effects, and prob;
no long term effects on Duck Creek. (Goose Creek into which Duck Creek flows does cont,'
Carolina Heelsplitter). Potential siltation should be reduced by carefully regulating construc
activities, by utilizing siltation trapping devices and other erosion control structures, and by
seeding exposed areas as soon as possible. Once the construction is completed, disturbed
are seeded, and a good ground cover of vegetation is established, this additional siltation w
be minimal. It would be advantageous, if possible, to schedule much of the construction dur
the summer or early fall because runoff would be minimal at this time, and this is a period of
12

Scientific name

J

Table 1. Organisms and Water Quality of Duck Creek.
Common name #4 ki #!? 1 Total
Cyprinidae
Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside dace 8 11 18

Hybopsis hypsinotus
Highback chub
8
5
2 7 44

Nocomis leptocephalus
Bluehead chub
16
1
7 4 19

Notropis alborus
Whitemouth shiner
1 47 71

altipinnis
Highfin shiner
1
7 10 11

chiliticus
Redlip shiner
2 8 16

Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chub
9
3
22
7 1 3

Catostomidae 9 50
Catostomus commersoni White sucker 1

Erimyzon oblongus
Creek chubsucker
2 2
7 3

Ictalurldae 6 15
Ameiurus melas Black bullhead 2

Aphredoderidae 2
Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch 10 4

Centrarchidae 14
Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 11 1 13 8 4

cyanellus
Green sunfish
1
12
2 37

macrochirus
Bluegill
1
3 1 16

Percidae 1 5
Etheostoma collis Carolina darter 3 1

,flabellare
Fantail darter
8 4

olmstedi
Tessellated darter
11
9
20
12 8
52
Others
Goniobasis Snail abund
Physella Snail

Unionidae
Clam • Comm

Corbicula
Asiatic clam 1 shell 1

Cambarus
Crayfish
3 Comm

Procambarus
Crayfish
9
3 7 2 12

Desmognathus fuscus
Dusky salamander
1 7 2 21

Eurycea bislineata
Two lined salamander
2 2 5

Rana sp.
Frog tadpoles
4 1
4

Water characteristics
Measure Units #1 #2 1 14 #5 #6 K
Date March 95 19 19 19 19 -
26 26 26
DO PPm
BOD 3.4 10.2 6.8 9.0 9.5 11.4 10.1
ppm
Secchi 9.3 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.2
cm

Turbidity NTU 50?

33 60? 30 50 -
100
70

Conductivity pmho
164 13
111 22
69 17
89 16
141 7.5
114 7.5
132
Acidity pH 6.9 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.4 7
6 7
4
Alkalinity ppm CaC03 eq. 64 42 20 26 52 .
35 .
41
Temp °C 13 12 12 16 13 16 13
Discharge Usec 0.1 16.0 0.3 0.7 2.0 35.0 78.0
is
growth of protective vegetation. A buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation between disturbed
and streams will go a long way toward reduction of influent silt. Golf course. Because of th
large amount of land disturbed during the construction of a golf course, major erosion and
consequent siltation could develop. It might be well to construct the lakes before the green
are cleared to act as large settling basins for this siltation. Once vegetation is established,
of siltation should be minimal, especially because the grass in most golf courses is so well
managed, and the lakes will act as sediment traps. Treatment plant. Construction of outfal
lines from the homes to the treatment plant, and of the plant itself should cause short-term
increases in siltation, but these should return to pre-construction levels once the areas are
stabilized. Land application should not affect siltation.
Turbidity. Turbidity refers to suspended material in the water which blocks sunlight, and tJ
reduces photosynthesis. This suspended material also settles out in slower areas and add
the silt load which covers bottom fish food organisms and buries fish eggs. Turbidity was b
20 NTU in all streams sampled except in the temporary stream at station 1 (Table 1). The
very little turbidity in lower Duck Creek which had Secchi visibilities of 100-70 cm. Homes.
Turbidity will greatly increase during times of runoff as a result of construction, but should i
to near pre-construction levels once disturbed areas are vegetated. As with siltation, moss
turbidity originates as a result of vegetation removal associated with land disturbance and
be dealt with in the same manner as siltation. Golf course. Turbidity will greatly increase
the golf course is being constructed. As mentioned above, the lakes on the golf course cou]
as sediment basins where suspended material can settle out. After construction, most turt
resulting from runoff should decrease. However, turbidity resulting from plankton may incr
This is because a large amount of fertilizer, either from the land application or from fertilize;
directly applied to the golf course would accumulate in the ponds and result in algal blooms
would enter the recipient stream. This will reduce turbidity but at the same time will provil
important food source for filter feeding organisms. Treatment plant. Use of the treatment 1
should not have a significant direct affect on turbidity. However, as mentioned above, it co,
result in plankton blooms.
Conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of dissolved ions that conduct electricity, primaril
sodium chloride from wastewater treatment discharge and limestone from agricultural runoff
Conductivity was unusually high in stations other than stations 3 and 4, and averaged from
to 141 µmho (Table 1). Homes and golf course. Runoff of lawn fertilizers and lime will inc;
conductivity during times of runoff. Such nutrient enrichment should not adversely affect tY;
streams, and pollutants resulting from construction are properly disposed of, the proposed
construction should not adversely affect conductivity. Treatment plant. Waste water efflu
often has a high conductivity due largely to high levels of sodium chloride. If this runoff en
streams during periods of high runoff, or if it is released directly into the stream when the €
water table is too high for ground application, then conductivity will be greatly increased.
Dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 9 to 11.4 ppm for all but stations excer
13

(only 3.4 ppm) and station #3 (6.8 ppm) both of which had a discharge of less than 1 liter per
second. Golf course. Homes and golf course. Construction and utilization of the homes or the
golf course would not normally affect dissolved oxygen. High levels of phytoplankton in the golf
course ponds could result in high levels of DO during the day; respiration of this plankton at night
could lower DO levels at that time. Treatment plant. If sewage effluent is satisfactorily treated,
there should be no decrease in DO from land application of even direct discharge of effluent into
' the stream.
' Organic pollution. Organic wastes result in low levels of dissolved oxygen as they decompose.
Resultant low dissolved oxygen is often a serious problem below some wastewater treatment
plants, and high BOD is often associated with a disagreeable odor and inability of all but the
' most resistant fishes to survive. BOD was less than 1.4 ppm for all stations except station #1
which had an unusually high value of 9.3. It is not known why the values were so high at this
station, but it may have been due to an increase in decomposition of leaves which had fallen in
' the stream associated with increases in water temperature. Homes and golf course. House and
golf construction and utilization should not affect BOD provided organic wastes are properly
' disposed of. Treatment plant. A properly constructed and operated treatment should have an
effluent BOD of less than 10. If the effluent BOD that enters the lakes is greater than the DO in
the lakes (especially in the stratified lower waters of the lakes), anaerobic conditions could
develop with associated fish kills, undesirable odors, and chemical changes. It is therefore
critically important that BOD levels be monitored continuously and kept within strict compliance
' specifications. If WWTP effluent is discharged directly into the stream, special consideration
should be given as to whether to these discharges are above or below the lakes. If they are
above the lakes, they could cause a serious depletion of oxygen. If they are below the lake, they
t could pose serious hazard to the Carolina heelsplitter clam (see "toxic wastes").
Toxic wastes. Toxic wastes are commonly present in Piedmont streams, and are often
associated with illegal industrial discharges. These wastes are often released sporadically at
night or on weekends. Unusually sensitive species such as certain fishes or mollusks may be
better indicators of these releases than occasional water analysis. A normal fish fauna indicates
that there were no serious toxic pollutants in streams of the area. The almost complete absence
' of molluscs except at lower sections of Duck Creek cannot be explained. pH and alkalinity
values were satisfactory for these organisms. Clams are unusually susceptible to the chlorinated
organics resulting from the treatment of waste water effluent, and discharge of even well-run
' plants can have serious effects on molluscs. But I am unaware of such plants in the vicinity of
the streams sampled. Homes and golf course. Care should be taken to assure that gasolines,
oils and lubricants resulting from home construction are properly disposed of and not enter the
runoff. Treatment plant. It is necessary to treat effluent of WWTP before they are released into
the environment to prevent spread of potential pathogens. Unfortunately, the tremendous decline
' of clams in recent years appears to be due largely to chlorinated organics resulting from
disinfection of remaining BOD in WWTP effluent. When chlorine combines with dissolved
' organics, the resulting chlorinated organics are highly toxic to mollusks. Decholorination
procedures remove any remaining unbound chlorine, but do not affect compounds already
1 14
produced. Probably the best solution to this problem is not to use chlorine. Ozone is son
used. Ultraviolet is becoming a method of choice. I recommend that UV radiation of effluf
built into the system rather than chlorination because Duck Creek flows directly into Goo
Creek, one of three streams in which the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter occur
pH was above neutral for the most stations, averaging 7.4, but was low for stations #1 ar.
#3 which as noted above had low DO and high BOD. As organic wastes decompose, cart
dioxide is released and this combines with the water to form dilute carbonic acid, which
lowers pH. In the granitic sections of the Piedmont of North Carolina high pH is often
associated with agricultural runoff of limestone or pH-buffered discharges. Construction o
the subdivision, golf course or treatment plant should not affect pH. Limestone applied tc
lawns and the golf course will probably increase pH, a welcome addition because alkalinit
beneficial to aquatic organisms.
Alkalinity is a measure of chemicals that will react with sulfuric acid; alkalinity tends to
correlate with pH. High alkalinity is often beneficial to aquatic organisms because of its
association with calcium and magnesium. Alkalinity was low in stations #3 and #4 and v
normal to high-normal at the other stations. Runoff of limestone from yards and the golf
course will probably increase alkalinity.
Eutrophication. High phosphates and nitrates may permit excessive growth of algae. hi
concentrations of algae may remove oxygen during nocturnal respiration, may block sunlij
reduce photosynthesis in lower waters, and may form unsightly mats on the surface. Suc
eutrophication is critical in certain streams and reservoirs of the state which have limited
residence time. However, eutrophication is not generally a problem in smaller streams,
proposed construction should present no problems of eutrophication to the streams of the
However, runoff of fertilizers from yards and the golf course, or from land application will
result in algal blooms in the lakes. These blooms will become problems if mats of algae
accumulate in downwind sections of the lakes to form unsightly masses. Nocturnal respi
large amounts of algae may reduce dissolved oxygen to the point that fishes die. Surface
concentrations of algae reduce sunlight available for photosynthesis in deeper areas of tl
potentially causing anaerobic conditions and fish kills. These are common problems ass(
with golf courses, and I recommend that experts in golf course construction be consulted
best ways to minimize these effects. Algae draining from these ponds will enter recipier
streams, and will provide additional food for filter feeding organisms such as insect larva
clams, and bottom feeding organisms such as several species of fishes that eat algae th
Debris. Care should be taken to assure the proper disposal of debris resulting from clea
construction.
Fishery resources. Only 17 different species of fishes were collected in the Duck Cree
drainage streams. Gamefishes included redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, and bluegill; b'
15

bullheads and creek chubsuckers were also taken. Few of the species collected were large
enough for consumption, and there is no significant fisheries in streams of the area. Increase in
plankton from the ponds may result in a significant increase in fishes in the streams. However,
the primary use of these streams as a fishery would probably be for children fishing for small
sunfishes for sport. With proper control of siltation and turbidity, construction should have few
' deleterious effects on stream fisheries. However, construction of the ponds will result in a
significant fisheries, and fishermen will undoubtedly introduce fish into the ponds. Because of the
hazard of being hit with golf balls, fishing cannot be continually allowed in ponds along fairways.
' Because these ponds will be associated with a residential development, there will be
considerable pressure to allow fishing, and a policy should be established as to whether to allow
' fishing 1) not at all, 2) during special events such as neighborhood picnics, or 3) at special hours
on certain days.
' Endangered species. Four specimens of the Carolina darter, a species of "Special Concern",
were collected from two of the stations, #4 and #5. These collections represent new localities of
the species. The Carolina darter has a spotty distribution in the Piedmont of the state that
' roughly corresponds to the Carolina slate belt. It reaches its maximal abundance in the southern
Piedmont and is particularly common in Union county. It seems to prefer Coastal Plain type
' habitats, as do the other members of its subgenus Hololepis, seeming to prefer vegetated
backwater areas. However, I have taken it from slow gravelly pools, shallow riffle areas, and
from heavily silted streams having moderate velocity. The Carolina darter appears to be tolerant
' of moderate amounts of siltation and of pollution in general, as evidenced by its occurrence in
Rocky River and this section of Duck Creek. Well supervised construction should present only a
' minor threat to this species.
The almost complete absence of both snails and clams, including Asiatic clams is unusual.
' Goniobasis snails were abundant at station #5 and occurred nowhere else. Physella snails and
Asiatic clams were common at station #7 and occurred nowhere else. The shell of a single
' unionid clam was found on a gravel bar below the NC 601 bridge. This appeared to be Elliptio
raveneli and not the Carolina heelsplitter. Few suitable silted areas along the bank indicated a
general lack of satisfactory habitat for unionid clams at this location.
Because of the extreme sensitivity of umomd clams to chlorinated hydrocarbons, I recommend
that ultra violet radiation be used to sterilize the waste water effluent prior to land application or
release into the streams.
' I recommend that the dam at station #7 below NC 601 be investigated. It creates a silty pool
upstream, and it blocks the upstream movement of fishes which may act as hosts for the larvae of
' the Carolina heelsplitter clams. Although this has nothing to do with the Sycamore project, I
recommend that the possibility of breaking this dam be investigated. Advantages would include
the creation of additional habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter by opening Duck Creek up for
' colonization by fishes transporting the larvae of the clam. A potential disadvantage of breaking
1 16
the dam would be the unknown effects of the release of silt downstream into Goose Creek.
dam were broken in early spring, spring floods might carry the silt down so rapidly that it v
have little effect on the clams, and the clams reproduction would not be affected because tt
reproduce in the fall (Gene Keiferl, pers. comm.).
Improvement of waters. Increase in alkalinity from runoff of limestone would be benefici
to stream organisms. Increase in plankton as a result of addition of fertilizers and land
application chemicals may result in an increase in stream organism, and should have no
deleterious effects.
Conclusion. In conclusion, construction of of the Sycamore Creek Golf and Country Club
probably result in a large increase in runoff and siltation; these can be reduced by standarc
erosion control measures and utilization of the proposed ponds. Once construction is
completed and vegetation is restored, these should not be a serious problems, although ru
may be higher than preconstruction levels. With satisfactory environmental safeguards a]
proper monitoring, and use of ultra violet radiation in the waste water treatment plant, the
should be no serious long term environmental consequences. I therefore recommend that
project be approved.
Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
17

?I

u
H
LEONARD 5, RINDNER
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Environmental Planning Consultant
13
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, N8C C 2riv
276 9191
Land Planning
August 9, 1995
Ms. Janice Nicholls
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: + 400 Acre- Sycamore Creek Golf Course Community, Meck./Union County, NC.
Dear Ms. Nicholls:
On behalf of my client, B.V. Belk, Inc., I am notifying the US Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the presence of endangered species which may be affected by the development
of this residential and golf course development near Duck Creek, a tributary of Goose
Creek. In the near future it may be necessary to apply for Section 404 Nationwide
Permits for the proposed wetland impacts. Based on the concerns you addressed in your
letter of March 31, 1995, and your site visit in April, the developer conducted surveys for
Schweinitz's sunflower, and the Carolina heelsplitter and other Federal and State Listed
species. According to the survey and reports conducted by Professor James Matthews,
and Professor Edward Menhinick of UNCC no populations of Schweinitz's sunflower,
Carolina heelsplitter, or other Federal candidate, or State listed species were identified.
Professor Menhinick also included suggestions and recommendations regarding
protection of water quality which are being incorporated into the plans.
I look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions about
the site based on my evaluation or need additional information. I am also requesting
written confirmation if you concur with the survey findings so I may include it with our
permit application in the future.
Thank: you for your assistance.
yinceerrely,
indner
ronmental Planning Consultant
Envi
NC Landscape Architect -578
cc. Mr. Tom Scott - B.V. Belk, Inc.
Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc

Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
' Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
' October 24, 1995
Ms. Janice Nicholls
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: ± 400 Acre- Sycamore Creek Golf Course Community, Meck./ -Jnion County, NC.
Dear Ms. Nicholls:
' On behalf of my client, B.V. Belk, Inc., I am notifying the US Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the presence of endangered species which may be affected by the development
of this residential and golf course development near Duck Creek, a tributary of Goose
' Creek. In the near future it may be necessary to apply for Section 404 Nationwide
Permits for the proposed wetland impacts. Based on the concerns you addressed in your
letter of March 31, 1995, and your site visit in April, the developer conducted surveys for
' Schweinitz's sunflower, and the Carolina heelsplitter and other Federal and State Listed
species. According to the survey and reports conducted by Professor James Matthews,
and Professor Edward Menhinick of UNCC no populations of Schweinitz's sunflower,
Carolina heelsplitter, or other Federal candidate, or State listed species were identified.
Professor Menhinick also included suggestions and recommendations regarding
protection of water quality which are being incorporated into the plans.
' I look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions about
the site based on my evaluation or need additional information. I am also requesting
written confirmation if you concur with the survey findings so I may include it with our
permit application in the future.
Thank you for your assistance.
Kincerely,
onard S. Rlndne
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect 4578
cc. W. Tom Scott B.V. Belk, Inc.
Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc
t

QPPSMgNT O? Thy,
a? sp United States Department of the Interior
- a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
y4RCN ?-gpA Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 13, 1995
Mr. Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh. North Carolina 27613
Dear Mr. Rindner:
Subject: Proposed development of a +400-acre site in Mecklenburg and
Union Counties, North Carolina
In your letter of October 24, 1995, you requested our concurrence that
the subject project will not affect any federally endangered, threatened,
proposed, or species of concern. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to your letter, this project will involve the construction of a
residential golf course community--Sycamore Creek Golf and Country
Club--on a ±400-acre tract located southeast of Charlotte off NC 218.
' The tract presently consists primarily of open fields and pastures and
pine woodlands. Duck Creek, a tributary of Goose Creek, runs through the
project area. The project site was surveyed by Dr. James Matthews and
Dr. Edward Menhinick of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for
' the possible presence of federally listed and/or Federal species of
concern.
The Service appreciates receiving a copy of Dr. Matthews' and
Menhinick's survey reports and concurs w`h the determination of "no
Dr
'
' .
s
effect" regarding the project and the federally endangered Schweinitz
ned
i
s concer
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). However, the Service
th
e
about the potential adverse effects this project could have on
As
ata)
d
i
.
ecor
aona
federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasm
Menhinick has pointed out, a population of Lasmiaona decorata is
Dr
.
known from Goose Creek, into which Duck Creek flows, in Union County. As
f
i
on o
noted in our March 31, 1995, letter to you, the current distribut
d
k
' an
this species is limited to portions of two streams--Goose Cree
Waxhaw Creek--and a small river originating out of rural areas in Union
County. The three extant populations are by no means secure and are
within rapidly developing areas.
' For the proposed project, the Service is particularly concerned about how
the effluent from the sewage treatment plant will be discharged and
ith a "not likely to adversely affect"
treated. The Service can concur w

' determination for the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata) if the following recommendations, as suggested by
Dr. Menhinick, are implemented for the project.
' 1. Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where
soil is disturbed and should be maintained until project
completion.
2. Temporary ground cover (e.g., hardwood mulch, straw, etc.)
should be placed on bare surfaces, including spoil piles, as
soon as construction is complete. Permanent vegetation in these
' same areas must be established within 15 days of project
completion in order to provide long-term erosion control.
3. If possible, lakes should be constructed before the golf course
basins
greenways on.arAlso, we cleared ento serve as ccourage the large of settling these lakes for
siltation. Also, we encourage the use of these lakes for
irrigation of the fairways.
' 4. To minimize sedimentation into Duck Creek and other tributaries,
we recommend preserving a 50- to 75-foot riparian buffer that
will also help stabilize stream banks, minimize runoff from the
golf course. and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife.
5. We recommend land application of the sewage effluent and that
ultraviolet light be considered for disinfecting the sewage
' effluent. If dechlorination remains part of the design, we
recommend that the plant be equipped with back-up dechlorination
systems. Dechlorination systems should be supplied with
emergency power.
' Please note that the Service will make the same recommendations to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if we are requested to review a permit
application under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for this project in
' the future.
We greatly appreciate the efforts you have taken to date to gather
information on rare species on the project site. The Service encourages
' your continued cooperation in assisting us with protecting the Lasmigona
decorata population in Goose Creek, downstream of the project site.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding
our comments. In any future correspondence concerning this project,
please reference our Log Number 4-2-95-057.
SinwSupervisor
Ric Act cc,
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
' 151 Patton Avenue. Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
f]

' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
' Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Dale C. Stewart, P.E.
Land Design Engineering Services, Inc.
1700 East Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
' RE: Golf Course Spray Irrigation
Sycamore Creels
Union County
A;4 7jL*A
?EHNF1
April 17, 1995
' Dear Mr. Stewart:
Thank you for inquiring about the Division's position on golf course/reuse spray irrigation
systems. The Division views the effluent used in these type of systems as a resource and encourages
' reuse where possible. Presently, the non-discharge regulations, 15A NCAC 2H.0200, are being
evaluated. We hope to modify the regulations in the near future to establish better Taidance and minimum
design criteria for effluent reuse systems, including golf course spray irrigation. In North Carolina, there
' are seven (7) existing golf course sprays, two of the largest being Uwharre Point and Governor's Club.
Additionally, there are several golf course spray irrigation systems now being proposed which will be
capable of treating and irrgating effluent up to 400,000 GPD and higher and involving up to seven or
eight different golf courses. In the near future, the Division expects several additional golf course spray
' irrigation systems to be designed and permitted.
The most important aspect of effluent reuse is the quality of effluent achieved. The effluent quality
the Division will require for typical reuse systems are as follows; a monthly average Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) of less than 5 mg/l, Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3 as N) of less than 2 mg/1, total
suspended solids (TSS) of less than 5 mQ/l, and a ma-=' um fecal coliform density of 51100 ml. With the
quality of effluent being achieved by the reuse systems, the Division is considering reducing buffer
' distances and other restrictions to further encourage the use of these type systems as part of the proposed
rule modifications.
' The preliminary information you have submitted for the Sycamore Creek recycle/reuse golf course
system indicates the system has the potential to meet or exceed the Division's requirements for effluent
reuse systems. With all the changes presently being considered with design requirements and minimum
criteria, the Division would like to extend an open invitation to meet and discuss any concerns or questions
you may have concerning effluent reuse. If you have any questions or comments or would like to set up a
meeting, please contact Carolyn McCaskill at [phone] ext. 540 or Michael Allen at ext. 547.

cc: Effluent Reuse File
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
Coleen Sul E., Supervisor
Permits an Engineering Unit
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Excess Sludge
To County Plant
Stand By Power
1
SYCA0302.WK4
SYCAMORE CREEK -'HASTE TREATMENT PLANT
PRELIMINARY PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC
From Collection System
0 o Influent Pump Staticn
I
Influent Screening
?- Fiow Measuring and
7 Flow Splitting
Flow Equalization
(Min. 25% Ave. 0)
I I
Sludge
Rec/de
o C
Sludge ..
Holding
o c
I
Backwash
-? Return
Extended Aeratlcn
Activated Sludge
Settling
Dual Media
Filtration
TSS< 5 mg1l
FeCI<S1100 ml I
1
Disinfection and
Effluent Flow Measurement
I
5-0ay Emergency
Holding Pond
j Supplemental
Disinfection
Wet Fresh
Weather 0 Water
Storage Irrigation
Pond Lake
Irrigation
Pump
Station
To Golf Course
Note: Dual Path Treatment Required

T EONLJ RD S RE D2 ' R
LLVI?AJ?
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
February 23, 1995
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: + 400 Acre Residential Golf Course Development Site in Mecklenburg and Union
County east of Mint Hill.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Tom Scott of B.V. Belk Investments, Inc., I am notifying the
State Historic Preservation office regarding the presence of historic or archaeological
sites that may be affected by the project my client plans to develop. In the future we
intend to apply for permits such as Section 404 Nationwide Permits. I have previously
visited the Office of State Archaeology and the Survey and Planning Branch concerning
this site and met briefly with Ms. Susan Myers and Ms. Elizabeth Dowd to review
existing data on the USGS Quad maps. Although, no archaeological sites or architectural
sites eligible for listing on the National Historic Register were indicated at this time, Ms.
Myers thought that additional information such as a survey may be necessary. She also
recommended that I contact your Office for input to determine, if possible, extent and
scope of a survey, if required. If a survey is necessary we are respectfully requesting that
the study area be limited to potential high probability areas, if this can be determined. We
will then utilize this information to obtain proposals from consultants.
I have included for your use a copy of a soils maps of the site which will help identify
agricultural fields and woodland areas. Much of the wooded areas are in various stages of
succession from tree harvesting and Hurricane Hugo damage. Also included is a copy of
the portion of the USGS Quad Map, and an Approximate Wetlands Map. I am aware of
an old structure on the site. It is a small wood frame house which has fallen in and has
been impacted by downed trees from Hurricane Hugo. I have indicated the approximate
location of this structure on the enclosed map.

1
1
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
February 23, 1995
Page 2
We look forward to your response and please contact me if you have any questions or
need additional information. We would also be available to meet with a representative of
your office on site, if possible.
Thank you for your assistance.
Since ly,
?• ,Oa
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect #578
cc. Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc.
Mr. Tom Scott - B.V. Belk Investments

k

F

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 21, 1995
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
71 13 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
Re: ±400-acre residential golf course development
site, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, ER 95-
8479
Dear Mr. Rindner:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1995, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Long House, located on the north side of NC 218 at the northwest junction
of Rock Hill Road (SR 1539), Brief vicinity. Appears as UN 217 on project
map. This house appears to be unaltered and retains a high degree of
architectural significance. We consider it eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion C for architecture.
We cannot determine if the proposed development will have a visual effect upon
the historic house. In addition, our information on the Long House is from the
early 1980s. Please send current photographs (Polaroid type photographs are
fine) of the Long House from the project site and key these photographs to the
map. If the Long House is not visible from the project site and will remain
screened upon completion of the development, please inform us of this in writing.
Based on the information you provided on the proposed development, we
recommend that an intensive archaeological survey be performed to identify and
evaluate sites that may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. The work should concentrate on areas of the broad upland ridges and
stream margins or terraces which have been shown to contain archaeological
resources during previous studies in the region, including the North Carolina
Department of Transportation East Charlotte Outer Loop.
Based on soil survey maps and other report date, we estimate approximately three
hundred of the four hundred total project acres will need to be examined. More
specific guidelines for survey strategies can be worked out by our staff
archaeologists in consultation with you and any archaeological firm you may select
to perform the work.
CID, East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1Z

Leonard S. Rindner
' March 21, 1995, Page 2
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
t an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
' Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archaeologists, or contact the society's
current secretary/treasurer, David L. Carlson, Department of Anthropology, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, telephone [phone].
Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be
contacted to conduct the recommended investigation.
' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
1 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
oa?? ?-
David Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
' Enclosures

1

' LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
' May 24, 1995
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
' Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: + 400 Acre Residential Golf Course Development Site (a.k.a. Sycamore Creek) in
Mecklenburg and Union County east of Mint Hill, ER 95-8479.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
' On behalf of my client. Mr. Tom Scott of B.V. Belk Investments, Inc.. I am providing the
information that you requested regarding the Long House (UN 217), located on the north side of
' NC 218 at the northwest junction of Rock Hill Church Road (SR 1539), Brief vicinity. Included
with this letter are photograph location maps and photos for your review of the vicinity, nearby
structures, and the Long House itself. I have also included current conceptual plans of the
Sycamore Creek development. As part of the overall landscape scheme and indicated on the plan,
the intent of the development will be to utilize existing trees supplemented with native vegetation
planted in a naturalistic manner to buffer the development and golf course from Hwy 218 and
' adjacent properties.
We are also in the process of conducting an archaeological survey on the site pursuant to your
request and we hope to receive the results in the near future.
' I hope this information is adequate and we look forward to your response. Please contact me if you
have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you.
er y
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
NC Landscape Architect 9578
' cc. Mr. Dale C. Stewart - LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc.
Mr. Tom Scott - B.V. Belk Investments

?•4.M.y,, :Pr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
' Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 20, 1995
Leonard S. Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
' 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
Re: Sycamore Creek Golf Course Development Site,
' Mint Hill vicinity, Mecklenburg and Union
Counties, ER 95-8479
' Dear Mr. Rindner:
Thank you for y?Dur letter of May 24, 1995, concerning the above project.
' We have reviewed '.he additional information and photographs you sent for this
project ;And determined the historic: Long House retains its architectural and
histcrical integrity. Thus, we believe it is still eligible for listing in the National
' Register of Historic Places.
The photc -graphs of the surrounding area are thorough and show an existing
subd;vision, Ashe Plantation, and several nonhistoric structures in the rural setting.
' A nonhistoric red brick house is set between the proposed Sycamore Creek project
and the historic Long House. Based on this information, we have determined the
project will have no effect upon the historic house which is set back from NC 210,
partially surrounded by trees, and visually screened from the subdivision by the
nonhistoric red brick house.
The above cnniments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Pr sc;rvat-.;)r1 r.Ct of 1 GOG and the Advisury Councii on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sinq!
rely,
David Brook
?/ ?_)
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
C)B:slw

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
7
-51

1 October 10, 1995

' Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
NC Department of Cultural Resources
' State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
' Re: Approximate 400 acre residential golf course development
site, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, known as Sycamore
' Creep, ER 95-8479
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
' As requested in your letter of March 21, 1995, we have conducted an intensive
archaeological survey to evaluate sites that may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. The survey was conducted by Tom Hargrove of Archaeological
Research Consultants, Inc. We have previously provided the additional information and
photographs pertaining to the Long House and it was determined that this project will have
' no effect on this historic house.
According to the survey, Tom Hargrove identified an ante-bellum farmstead site that he
' determined had significant characteristics and an associated landscape. This site is described
in the report as well as a letter to our planners on September 26, 1995. Based on his
recommendations we asked Tom to delineate the area for potential preservation or future
archaeological excavations. As you can see in the attached maps, I have instructed our land
planning and civil engineering consultants to adjust the plan and roadway design to avoid
the delineated area completely. In this way our road construction and wetlands permitting
' will not jeopardize this potentially significant site. Please note that it is extremely important
that we continue the design process and complete our construction documents and wetlands
permitting on this project as quickly as possible. We respectfully request your cooperation
and will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office on this site for direction during
the process.

' Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
October 10, 1995
' Page Two
We would be more than happy to meet with you on the project site to review the findings
' in more detail. If you approve of our actions to avoid the site, we would appreciate a
confirmation letter from you so we may include it with our Nationwide Permit Application
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Scott
' President
TWS/jss
' tom\sycamore\gledhill.ltr

r

' LEONARD S RINDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
' Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
' LETTER //OF TRANSMITTAL
TO : ?S. )?.M G?. V'rldA, / / - t[r' ley DATE: 0// 0/,Z:
' G7 tV& 14 le. 4zv,-l c. T/CSG?/6t ?Za?
' PROJECT : PROJA r= ?qh 8A/7
ITEMS SENT
4,,4r- - I-Or?1 ? ??'?I 07 . Y, T/ ? . I?1 ? lYlGyi
2= J, Ar ,oo-( If 14

I

C,4-401y? eabdtll-46-c)
COMMENTS:
jor rwIe44,0)

6,2-?
B
COPY: A?• 7f-ti Sed)-?

LL Ln
O Q >
Z
O Q
Z
H
Q
x Q

J
Z CL
w a ~
Q Q 0

LO
OI
cm
N
to
z
4
J
a
N
Q
w
Q
J
J ..
W
U
W ?
0.
Q
U
}
N
'I" _ ?.•'ri /_' ) ?, ? ?1?1? ?1) 'iV/
w
ILJ
w
` ? I 1
1 /
jNV
"Jc
V MJ Q
',It W
v
?33 ? ? ? _- - - ,??? ?J Ili' ,, ? . ? • -?acj?? ? ? r=.
? \ 1
e 11 \ I ?1 U ?.. / 1
P4
e
m ?ir LIJ R
U l i
o
Z w \( \ 3 _
w ?? \ L
Z a
J w \ -
W r
e w

0
0
3
Ll
a'
1
e 1„
M
W
r
J
Q
U
C7
O
J
O cn
W W
Q ?
= U
U Q
tY ?
Q N
~
LL
O Q
Z W
O cr
Q
r
W x
2 O
o Q

•1
i
ar'o,r ? rnn?'n0 r

v z a
? Q o
m
= J
x d
W
N
W
N
Y
W
W
\? S
f^1 Q

/ 1 1 1. I 1 I III 1( r
/ ? /; 1 `?•,', ??•,I'?i ,• ? I, \ + \ ? li_ 1 4 ?;l I'I?11???14' / rrr,
t?r?. `i, \ IT,; Z
'.j'/' a1 Q 1
?C\ '\ ' tl' 'I:ilr rtAfi• - \ _1 Rr'?'11 .///,??' " ? /, - I 2 ,? /
l ?1 \ r C / 1
\/ I In l /1 I ?J lr ??r /t/? I ?II ( 1 ? ? W
f j,
/1 \//`' I.• ?, 'I T W
UO)
Ap;
i/? / I r ? i _??_/? ? .III Ill ? ? IIt1 1 ? ? .-._- - '?/? .i?I\I :•
?!?•/• /. to / / Z ? .r' ??' ? \? ?,`1 +, /
kj,
S't9 b9 11 .
r' ?? /? ? 'i.- 1 ', ? I C \\ ('1 C 1' J.A\ ?\?• \ `\., ?+ // ,/t DWI ?-
l
t I J w
;I.
I?
y
IXI?
\..,\ H . `/ ( / \\ i ^\ l ?'(r ( p ply
(r _ \ i
in
?/ I jC \' \?\? - ?• I ( l l ' .\, ?Y_'r, ill ?l, •rl/// ,/`
,
'15 -0
LI 11 \(< O y, II
I\ ? r p
cl,
Qu
7 - - _ + I IJ l l Q'? ?q l\\ .?
\ \ \"\,,.?\ ,1 .?N' Q Q ,??? ? . _ I ??.. .. i ? _ _ -- t f \?` .. ?. \• ',-1. l / iii//
114 /? / ?. I ?_ f 1 , t7t/,7, / '.
I?i.,rill{'yiP1111! . \r W n N1 fill
C r ,17,1 ` Q Q 1 }` ? _ I•% ?i li ' 1 ..??+?i _S
I ? N 1)
5 ? } C`?`j?:j ?l /?f ?.?7Q'`\\ ?,?1.:..1`??1- j ?\ ? - \ l\. ?/. _ It ? 1 _, 1 ?1,_'?L•
I .

?= ?i/>I/ f .?G? ,?'? I 1 r r r r 1'rl If ? >\`? l ? •??• ° :? l?l ? ? -, ,
? .. •• t l NI
?7

Z W
U ?
W d
a r
pp
v

P

' _v
I\ I \
Em \Jt
M21;
40
ilk
W
VNS
t
J
II III i ?i i a x -f \-\ _
?V\`?
.
' x11111
I I I I ? 11`x' / I
\ Y
FFUN . Prcl,aeoiogleai h'eSearch r.a i+c 11v. • -1 v-

t ARCHAEOLOGICAL
UESEARCH
' CONSULTANTS, INC.
' Mr. Dale C. Stewart w September 26, 1995
Land Design Engineering, Inc.
1700 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
RE: Delineation of Archaeological Site 31MK774, Sycamore Creek Project,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina.
' Dear Mr. Stewart:
On Monday, September 25, 1995, I visited the archaeological site at 3IMK774 with Leonard
Rindner for the purpose of establishing a boundary around the antebellum farmstead site. The
boundary is based partly upon visible remains of the farmstead (including structural remains and
abandoned farm equipment) and partly on the site's topography. The area enclosed by our blue-
and-white flags (lettered A through M) is approximately 1.5 acres. The log house stands on the
uplands in the west-central section of the site. The site area extends north of the house to take in a
square depression and a line of cedar trees (probably the remnant of a fence line or a structure),
extends to the west and southwest to take in the ruin of a frame outbuilding, and extends to the east
' to take in the farmstead's spring, an abandoned access road, and the west bank of Duck Creek.
The northern and southern boundaries also reflect the points where elevation bc; is to drop away
into the drainages to the north and south of the site,
' 1 recommend eitha one of two courses of action. One course would be preservation of the
site, possibly as a combined historical and natural area, a green space that could encompass
the site and the adjacent wetlands. If the project plans cannot accomodate preservation of
' the site, however, a second wurse might a necessary: archaeological excavations for data
rewvery, including excavations in and aruwid the log house, recording the remnants of the
superstructure, locating and excavating other outbuildings, and recording documentary and
oral histories of the farmstead.
if you have any questions about the site boundaries or these recommendations, please don't
hesitate to let me know. Thank you.
t Yours,
?1 a? I
' Tom Hargrove
cc. Leonard Rindner
P.O, Box 25426
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 010 872-0429

y ,.
v
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
November 7, 1995
Thomas W. Scott, President
' Belk Investments & Development
4400 Park Road, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28309
i Re: 400-acre residential golf course development
east of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County, ER 95-
8479, ER 96-7689
Dear Mr. Scott:
' Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1995, concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the draft archaeological survey report and site forms prepared by
Thomas Hargrove of Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., for the above
project and identified several minor inconsistencies which need to be revised before
we can continue our review.
The scope of work and the draft report indicate that sites will be evaluated for
' eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. This requirement was not
consistently satisfied within the report. A definitive statement regarding National
Register eligibility was not presented for each recorded site. Evaluations were
presented within the report for sites 31 MK769-773, but were omitted for sites
' 31 UN201, 202, and 31 MK774. Additionally, site 31 MK774 was identified as "a
surviving example of an antebellum single-pen log house, now rare in Mecklenburg
County." This site was recommended for preservation or additional testing, but an
' evaluation of National Register eligibility was not made. Statements of eligibility
should be made for each site.
After conversations concerning the project, we received the copy of the surveyed
' area map and have added it to our files to use once the above items have been
addressed.
' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
S, rely,
David Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
' cc: Thomas Hargrove
Archaeological Research Consultants
P.O. Box 25426
' Raleigh, NC 27611
?Leonard S. Rindner
' Environmental Planning Consultant
71 13 Hickory Nut Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613

h-,-uri : Hrrhvc 1091cai K°S?3rch I UNC NU. : `71'J L'-? 0429

AkRC
' HAEOLOGICAL
UESEARCH
1 _
CONSULTANT
S, INC.
1
' David Brook November 7, 1995
DeputyState HistoricPreservadonOt'Pficar
North Carolina Division of Archives and Ifix=7
109 East. Jones Street
' Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: An Archaeo1 iCal Survey of the Proposed Sycamore Creels Golf and County Club
Develop=e=, Mint Hill Vi "t/, Mectienburg =d Uuioa Counties, Nc rrb Cacolimt
(fiR 95-8479, ER 96-7689).
Dear Mr, Brcok:
' Thank you foryvur comments on the report of she Phvzc I 3urv of the S ore Creek
project. I am suggesting the following, changes to the repoct for the sake of ciadilc' at oon,
' Nati0n&MeQiater*-. I suggest adding a list of the sites, with opinions about
NatioaalRe ' eligibility, totha M?nagemmzSum nm7" and "Standards of Sign icance"
sections of tfie repots. Tile aaaclzmenr to cf?is seism shows t#4s revised list, with explicit staremeats
' - aboutpowibleNat; onalR eligibility. Underthe"Sumlari3ofSignificsace"3ewon,euplicit
9tatemeats about ptn ble 14ationAtRegisw eligibility will be added to the discussion of the lack of
research al forthe Pimbistoric mates and to the di=umions of the historic-period remains at
31UN20 ;: and 31MK7 4xs.
Pl eamv WE me know if these ciarifieations will address your comments. 1"han t you.
' Yours,
' Thomu H
' cc: Land DesigynF.agiaeoritg, Inc.

PO-
1=
P.O. Box 25428
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 919 832-0429
P.O. Box 23426
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
919 532-0429

Sis Number Type of Site Reese nch Pofer#d NsUondRsgWer
t P of fftw
31 UN201 hiataric structure site (20th c.) im. low density, probabl)ineligible
tvrt/b disturbed, recciuage
' 31UNZ01 minorprehistoriclithic
coumponent(singleflake) 1431; isolated find probabl$neVble
31UN202 piehiscariciithicextcactionmte Im beavilydis- "ablyineligible
' tw-bed, no strat-
igrapbidawgrity
' 31 MK769** miniagsiw lm- shafts and spoil prvbablyiaeligible
pilesla&associated
remains

31MK769*= miningsiw
31 MK770 prehistorictithicsite
0
r

31 MK771' * nineteenth centuryfarmhousesite
31MK772** minin site
31 MK773 prebisLo iclithicsite
31 MK774* * wuebellumformbousesite
(Hampton House)

W a ..- _. _ r-.I
km- shafts and spoil prvbabl*eligible
pileslackassociated
remains
IM low density,
beavitydisturbed
Li ; benarpre-
servedexamples
are abundam in the
acs
probabl*eVble
probablyineligible
L,; shafts and spoil prvbablyiaeVble
paleslackassociated
remains
I; bcxvily dis- probabI*eVble
turbed,de!`lated
. -h to medimm: possiblyeligible
represents a now-
rare example of ealy
19th c, dwelling iu
MecklenbwvCounty;
in poor condition as a
savature, butwea-pre
sa VW from an artwb?o-
14calperspective

L

,? Arc
3 ?? S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 17, 1995
Thomas W. Scott, President
Belk Investments & Development
4400 Park Road, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28309
Re: Sycamore Creek, 400-acre residential golf
course development east of Mint Hill,
Mecklenburg County, ER 95-8479, ER 96-7689
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1995, concerning the above project.
' We have reviewed the road realignment proposed to avoid impacts to
archaeological site 31MK774**. We find the realignment acceptable as a
temporary measure to avoid impacts to this fragile historical resource. Design
related activities should be allowed to proceed given your intention to conduct
' future archaeological excavations or adequately preserve the site. Realignment of
the road to the north successfully avoids the site area, but does not constitute a
final plan for its treatment. We expect to continue Section 106 consultations with
' the Army Corps of Engineers concerning issues of preservation, avoidance, and/or
mitigation of these remains.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: bZeonard S. Rindner
Richard Lewis, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Steve Lund, Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
C
1109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
Sycamore Creek
Golf and Country Club Development,
Mint Dill Vicinity,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
August 1995
ER 95-8479
A Report Submitted to LandDesign Engineering Services, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina,
by
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
i
Table of Contents
Management Summary ...............................................................................1
Introduction ..................... ...................................................................... 3
Physical Environment ....... ......................................................................... 3
Prehistoric Background ..... ......................................................................... 5
Ethnohistoric Background .... ....................................................................... 5
Archaeological Research in the Project Vicinity .................................................... 7
Historical Background ...... ......................................................................... 7
Field Methods ................. ........................................................................ 8
Results of the Survey ...... .......................................................................... 9
Standards of Significance . ........................................................................... 16
Recommendations ....................................................................................20
References Cited ......................................................................................21
Appendix: The Survey Proposal .....................................................................25

List of Figures

Follows
Page
'
Figure 1: North Carolina and the project area ..................................................... 3
Figure 2: Mecklenburg and Union Counties and the project area ................................ 3
Figure 3: The Mint Hill vicinity and the project area .............................................. 3
Figure 4: A collapsed shaft at 31MK769** ........................................................ 11
Figure 5: A collapsed shaft at 31MK772** ........................................................ 12

Figure 6: Looking southward across 31MK773 .................................................. 13
' Figure 7: Shovel tests at 31MK773 ... ............................................................ 13
Figure 8: Collapsed house at 31MK771 ** ......................................................... 14
Figure 9: Pegged timber-frame construction at 31MK771 ** .................................... 14
Figure 10: Condition of the antebellum house at 31MK774** ................................. 14

ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The archwological survey of the proposed Sycamore Creek golf and country club
development covered about 400 acres east of Mint Hill. About two-thirds of the project tract is in
southeastern Mecklenburg, and about one-third of the tract is in northwestern Union County,
North Carolina. The purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for prehistoric or
historical archmlogical sites with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places.
Since most of the project area is in forest or fallow fields, the survey relied heavily on
transects with I'creened shovel tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet). In areas with exposed ground
surfaces (some parts of the fallow fields, eroded pastures, farmroads, treefalls, etc.), the surveyors
closely examined the area for prehistoric and historic artifacts.
The survey recorded eight sites:
31UN201 ** historic structure site, with minor prehistoric lithic component
31UN201
31 UN202 prehistoric lithic extraction site
31MK769** mining site
31MK770 prehistoric lithic site
31MK771** nineteenth century farmhouse site
31MK772** mining site
31MK773 prehistoric lithic site
31MK774** antebellum farmhouse site
The Sycamore Creek prehistoric sites are all lithic sites, so far lacking diagnostic artifacts
that might allow us to estimate dates for the occupations. All of the known remains appear to be
confined to superficial and eroded "A" horizons. Except for the lithic extraction site at 31UN202,
the sites are also limited in size.
The mining remains at 21MK769** and 2 1MK772** are represented by collapsed shafts
and tailings, but other elements of the mining activities (machinery, miners' settlements, etc.) are
absent.
The site at MMK771** is a farmhouse dating to the late nineteenth century, a type
represented by hundreds of other examples, including standing structures, in Mecklenburg County
alone. Considering the site's relatively recent age and the large number of similar farmsteads
(many with standing structures and potential for oral history, as well) in nearby areas of rural
North Carolina, this historic-period site does not seem significant enough to warrant nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places.
The historic component at 2 t Uh 201 ** appears to be the remnant of a twentieth century
farm outbuilding or a very small house. The low density of artifacts, the relatively recent age of
the site, and the high degree of disturbance diminish the potential for additional research.

' 1MK774** is an example of an antebellum single-pen tog house, now rare in
b
Mecklenburg County. The structure is in a very poor state of preservation, but from the
' perspective of archaeology, the house and its features are relatively well-preserved The site might
also contain archmological features such as slave quarters, kitchens, barns, and other outbuildings.
The site offers an opportunity for an archaeological study of an early to mid nineteenth century
farmstead, combined with oral and documentary history available from the previous owner.
We do not recommend additional archaeological investigations at Sycamore Creek's
' prehistoric sites% 31UN201, 31UN202, 31MK770, and 31MK773. We do not recommend
additional archaeological investigations at the two mining sites (31MK769** and 31MK772**) or
at two of the house sites (31 UN201 ** and 31 MK771 **).
For the antebellum house site at 31MK774**, we recommend one of two courses of
action, depending on construction plans for the area:
' 1) If the house and its vicinity are outside of construction areas, we recommend
preservation of the site, perhaps in a small common area or green space.
2) If the house and its site are inside construction areas, then we recommend Phase U test
' excavations and recording of the structure. The test excavations should focus on
establishing the dates of first occupation of the site and on locating remains of
outbuildings (detached kitchens, slave quarters, etc.) that might have stood near the
' house. This phase of work should include archival research on the site and its former
occupants and interviews with Larry Black to record an oral history of the site.

INTRODUCTION
prQipct title: An Archxologicai Survey of the Proposed Sycamore Creek Golf and Country
Club Development, Mint Hill Vicinity, Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
North Carolina (ER 95-8479).
Lotion of the vroiect: The 400 acre tract is west of Mint Hill, a community on the east side of
Charlotte. About two-thirds of the project tract is in southeastern Mecklenburg, and about one-
third of the tract is in northwestern Union County, North Carolina. The northern border of the
tract is formed by NC 218. On the east side of the tract is SR 1539 (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The
tract is in headwaters of the U.S.G.S. Dee q as th (close to the divide with the Catawba River basin)
and is shown on the U.S.
Contracting organization: LandDes gn n Deve ng Services, ,Inc. of or B.V. Belk
Principgl Investigator and Field Director: Thomas H. Hargrove.
Field Crew: Patricia Samford, Marshall Wyatt.
Dates of survey: July 11 - 14, 1995.
The following sections follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaological Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archaology Branch, Division of Archives and
History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and the 1992 edition of the style guide
for American Antiquity (volume 54, number 4). The sections include a description of the project's
physical environment and its probable influences on past settlement choices and site preservation;
an outline of the area's prehistoric and historic background; a description of field techniques; an
inventory of sites recorded during the survey; a discussion of the archaeological significance of the
sites recorded; recommendations for archaeological management; and a list of sources consulted for
the background research, survey, and evaluation. The proposal for the survey is included in the
appendix.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project area is in the southern Piedmont's Carolina Slate Belt System (Daniels et
al. 1984:38), with irregular in per-n? and ridges u ring valley numerous
are typical an the s°ateand
short valley sides. The rollm?
southwestern Piedmont uplands. About 30 acres of the tract have slopes of 15% or more.
Elevations range from about 620 feet in the bottomlands along the upper reaches of Duck
Creek, up to almost 730 feet on one of the higher ridgetops. From a geological perspective,
the area can be divided into two belts: one of metavolcaruc rock, with felsic to mafic tuffs
(roughly, the Mecklenburg County side); and a second belt of phyllite and schist (roughly, the
Union County side) (North Carolina Geological Survey 1985).

r?
al
r• ,
i
j ri I /.. t ; . I •
I
I ? ? ? ? v Imo` \ _/•? •• /;
1 i'"?/ ! I
1
??'j7
3
C
c.
RS
U
.O
C
cC
cC
C
O
ctS
U
0
z
P'•'1
r'GA
W
s
u
t
W
O
U
z
u
Lela ` ?H a?
.nry
+,r!? - C ?? o? j akav?w
Oar Cr
Claremont `Cat3yvna Burial E001,3 Cleveland arbgr O FronkliO
ord OnOV j Banum Sonnas Y r
r
w? ' R routmans
`V]• I BA.-- Amity HillL Pow?-. ' Beserr
don Isla Oswalt
• ° W;111'
Newn 611 Mi4 BridY0 Row III sbu
to ownp \ Bandy \ , Mazepoaj of O G n
1 hercIH; / $hepperds
1 Ord ' J a` Granitol
0 81st burn Quarry
Duan Drums _? Doolie 1 / /1
A fy ?? _? p CfOSSfoad 9r. ??r\'. j
O?°rr 6n3 UI -? LAAE XAr Ilp r/?j?r• - _ Faith0 r
PIatM II Maidan Killian - i? I 11 19 ` i MOOrebville China Gravf? ooe , Cre,
f Jl ?11t1 0 2
-T? _ ??_ossroads; , ^ I . ew I ®asuan Ra
Mt Mour e 1 elgh
II NP(2MAN .a91? d
O PUmokln DeQV ? - '! i ? 1°
Canter
Davids -? T
0 L N r V ?' 4 Cornell4sa K apolis
t? • oger City-, Triangi v 5a /. l', ` + a n ' 4
1 `
I 11 . i ?I)J i Caldwell y %
onntidwn Lincoln to I- iI /
1 1 1 '
p .a l Iron >°°y •? V ?. \? :C,
bo to Station .? v U
JL4
J \ (?'
Crcwse u how svilla Shoals H ntersvllla e0(1CQf
L.,.. _ MariOos= O - / i•ur _ ?'` ioa.r?
?' l(` O c
v h Shoals "Xis Mt Pleasant
Icy ' cia. `wi
?• ?? ?" ,vl;,ul?;.::
n
Hardins
Po \-,.,C A ?R U
lI Dula
m
r ! r'', ?^1 Stanley ' Vill 6a_ L MII? Barriers Millr /
Croft 6
OSW"yslde Dallas P- scr a ??farrisburgo `Flows R,?a? dorgwil4
N Lai
A -- N Mt oi ly - rtta \ Rocky Kiw ri 0 tore
r
?J
nto K LE. 'BURG
Ra Bel
8s5$me 0 i Newell
L
am City ' ?! M de Ile v?ickory ove O
Cabarrus ? to
tier to Vlt D S ?? i3 I H
% NoRao
?/? ?M1 Cramer't:on Be tsou o cK as
Boogerto wn _ Alle?? Mi land
Mint/4iill 'BriyL? k.,c.ky
utvv?eca r•, I , ?
= +r ' oods / I Fairview ??i
LA 4Z 1 O
WY !c `,. o _Jrtatthe s c) /Cr? o
Stallings Unionville °{.
P S Pingvi.:.., - /India - 'cyste
ooo Oil l 11M
I
nI e \JI •? 1 T( Stouts
Wedding o Bakerd O
,O
Figure 2: Mecklenburg and Union Counties and the project area (arrow).
Base map: U.S.G.S..SarrrofYsbrthCdrO.&W,
Scale: one inch = eight miles
i

I

1
_ v
'Mint _ 31 MK773
.aac;°??211' 9**? .'))?'." 1` 1J''' / j J•,\'\ `?
31MK76 I L. I I r Jj
31MK770
..1 'F C.
31 UN201
1, 331 MK7. 72*' 31 UN201
?. (:.•• II (r' ?f? i• \,???'I -^? I,( 315 ?'.? / I ?? ?C ?-1i? \ _ ??i _
. JJ f
?` a I S re

31'MK771 31 MK774**' '
•? .1511 ' ? _.?, \? ? I .r??.,.`
j J1
\ (`•\ 1 ? ill -. 1"-? _,I \ ?? ??"
131 UN202
_ ?\ , • IJ 2
1.? y
Sil
Figure 3: The Mint Hill vicinity and the project area (outlined),
with archmological sites.
Base map: U.S.G.S. Midland quad.

The tract consists largely of eroded upland soil types (McCachren 1980):
Badin channery silt loam: well drained soil on broad ridges
Cecil sandy clay loam: well drained soil on broad ridges
Cid channery silt loam: well drained soil on broad ridges
Georgeville silty clay loam: well drained soil on broad ridges
Helena fine sandy loam: moderately well drained soil on broad ridges and in
areas near intermittent stream heads
Lignum gravelly silt loam: moderately well drained soil on low ridges and
side slopes
Tatum gravelly silt loam: well drained soil on broad ridges
Vance sandy loam: well drained soil on broad ridges and side slopes
The tract also has poorly drained lowland soils:
Monacan soils: poorly drained floodplain soils along the headwaters of Duck Creek.
The tract has none of the well-drained floodplain soils (for example, Congaree or Altavista soils)
that often feature prehistoric sites. Both sheetwash and gully erosion are widespread throughout
the project area. The uplands of this section of the Piedmont have lost an average of almost 5 to 7
inches of soil to erosion, according to Trimble (1974), and most of the tract was used for intensive
cotton cultivation, dairy farming, or logging into the twentieth century (Larry Black, personal
communication). A Soil Conservation Service photograph from April 11, 1938 shows that most
of the tract in the late 1930s was either cultivated or in pasture.
The area is drained by the headwaters of Duck Creek and some of its small intermittent
tributaries, part of the Pee Dee River basin. The tract is almost on the inter-riverine divide between
the Pee Dee and Catawba River drainages.
Under natural conditions, the local upland forests would consist of white oak, red oak,
hickory, sycamore, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, dogwood, black cherry, and holly. The lowland
forests would include water oak, white oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, American sycamore, and
loblolly pine (McCachren 1980)
Most of the tract is wooded but shows signs of farming or logging in recent decades.
Several of these once-cleared areas have reached advanced stages of secondary growth, with dense
stands of saplings. One large field of about 20 acres was cultivated until last year, but no acreage
had recently been plowed at the time of our survey. No large areas of ground exposure were
available for field-walking surveys.

1
PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
' The earliest recorded human settlements in
the North Carolina Piedmont are Clovis- period
campsites that date from the close of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. Fluted Clovis
points are occasionally found in surface collections in the region, but no intact Clovis sites have
been recorded in the North Carolina Piedmont. Clovis points have been found in North Carolina's
southwestern Piedmont in Cabarrus County near Rimer (just east of Kannapolis) and near Lake
' Norman in Mecklenburg County (Perkinson 1973). It seems likely that the project area was
occupied or at least visited by bands of Late Ice Age hunters 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The
oldest excavated site in the North Carolina Piedmont dates from the Hardaway period, about
10,000 B.C. to 8,000 B.C. (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976). We know almost nothing about
' these earliest North Carolinians. They were probably nomadic hunters and gatherers, but we do
not know whether these eastern Paleo-Indians resembled their Paleo-Indian contemporaries west of
the Mississippi River and also hunted now-extinct big game animals such as mammoth and bison.
' The following Archaic period is somewhat better known, but still the subject of a great deal
of speculation because we lack information about major aspects of subsistence and social
' organization. Overviews of the Archaic period have suggested that the Archaic cultures of eastern
North America show an evolutionary sequence in which nomadic or semi- nomadic hunter-
gatherers, fishers, and shellfish collectors developed regional adaptations to the warmer climates,
expanding deciduous forests, and smaller game animals of the Holocene (Willey 1966:60;
' Caldwell 1958). The Early Archaic period in North Carolina is sub-divided into a Palmer phase
(ca. 8,000 B.C.) and a Kirk phase (7,000-6,000 B.C.), both characterized by corner-notched
points (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976:11-12). The Middle Archaic period is represented by the
' Stanly phase (6,000-5,000 B.C.), the Morrow Mountain phase (5,000 - 4,500 B.C.), the Guilford
phase (4,500-4,000 B.C.), and the Halifax phase (3.500 B.C.) (Coe, 1964; Ward and Coe
1976:11-12). The Late Archaic. or Savannah River period (4,000-500 B.C.) is characterized by
large, triangular points with broad stems and by large bowls carved from soapstone (Coe
1964:119; Ward and Coe 1976:1976).
The Woodland period in eastern North America is often marked by the appearance of
pottery, the bow and arrow, farming (although this feature came late to some areas) and in some
regions by the construction of burial and temple mounds. In the North Carolina Piedmont, the first
recognized Woodland phase is the Badin (ca. 500 B.C - A.D. 500), marked by sand-tempered,
' fabric- or cord-marked ceramics and large, often crude triangular points. Its successor was the
Yadkin phase (ca. A.D. 500-1200), whose ceramics resembled its predecessor's, with occasional
linear or check stamping added to the decorative motifs. Another difference between the Badin
pottery and the later Yadkin pottery is the latter's use of crushed quartz temper (Coe 1964:30,55).
' In the period after A.D. 1200, regional differences appeared in the form of Caraway, Uwharrie,
Dan River, Hillsborough, and Pee Dee cultures (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976:13). Woodland-
period village sites are normally found on well-drained lowlands or on nearby rises or rid-etoes
overlooking stream valleys, although smaller, satellite camps or hamlet sites are sometimes found
in the Piedmont uplands.
1 ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND
' Although most histories of North Carolina tend to date the first significant Indian and
European contacts to the English coastal explorations and Roanoke settlements of the 1580s, the
Spanish had explored western North Carolina and had made an unsuccessful attempt to garrison

the Piedmont over 20 years before. During the 1560s, the Spanish contingent at Santa Elena (now
Parris Island Marine Base in South Carolina) sent an expedition under Juan Pardo into the western
Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina. According to one interpretation of the Spanish
records of these expeditions, the Spanish soldiers visited Indian villages in the Piedmont in the
vicinity of the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden, and built
garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury. The village of Otari, probably near Charlotte,
not far to the southwest of the project area, was briefly visited by the Spanish in September 1567.
Unfortunately, the Spanish recorded little information about the Indians encountered on these
expeditions. These garrisons were short-lived because of hostilities between the Indians and the
Spanish, who burned several Indian towns, and because of the fragile supply lines between the
western Piedmont and Santa Elena on the lower South Carolina coast (Hudson 1976:116-118;
Hudson et al. 1981). Although the Spanish were looking for gold in the Piedmont and mountains,
they never found it, even though gold mining became a local industry over two centuries later.
The next recorded visitor to.this section of the Piedmont was the explorer John Lederer, a
German doctor commissioned by the Governor of Virginia to look for a westward route to the
Pacific Ocean in 1669 and 1670. His account of his visit to the Piedmont in 1670 during a journey
along the Trading Path to the Catawba was and still is controversial (Adams 1980). By some
interpretations, Lederer travelled south from Virginia until he reached the Catawba Indians in the
vicinity of modern-day Fort Mill or Camden. South Carolina. The local Waxhaw Indians might
have been the Wisacky people described by Lederer in 1670 (Brown 1966:80).
After Lederer, the next Piedmont explorer of major significance for local ethnohistory is
John Lawson, who crossed the North Carolina Piedmont and coastal plain in the winter of 1700-
1701. Like Lederer, Lawson used the Trading Path for much of his journey, but in contrast to
Lederer, he began his journey on the coast of South Carolina and travelled to what is now the
Charlotte area. There he picked up the Trading Path and moved north along the Path until he
reached the Occaneechi village on the Eno River near present-day Hillsborough. Somewhere in the
Charlotte vicinity, Lawson's path took him through the territories of the Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba,
and Waxhaw Indians, who occupied the project vicinity just before the arrival of European
colonists (Lefler 1967:39-50).
From Lawson's description of these Piedmont societies, we obtain a picture of small,
scattered groups of Indians, often living in palisaded villages of 17 houses or less (Lefler
1967:50,55,56). Although these villages were often associated with large fields of maize, the
Piedmont Indians also relied heavily on wild plants (especially the acorn) and on game for much of
their food They followed a seasonal round, divided roughly into a winter phase and a spring and
summer phase. During the winter, adult men and women left the main villages to the elderly and
the children and formed satellite camps in the "hunting quarters." From these camps, they hunted
and foraged until spring, when the members of a village returned to it to plant maize, squash, and
other crops. To judge from the comments of Lawson and other travellers, the Piedmont abounded
in game: white-tailed deer, turkey, bear, beaver, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, squirrel, bison, and
passenger pigeon. The larger Piedmont rivers, such as the Catawba River and its tributary
streams, provided many species of fish, including the spring runs of anadramous fish, which the
Indians caught with weirs (Lefler 1967:216 - 218, 182).
In 1715, the Catawba Indians attacked and nearly exterminated the Waxhaw. Some of the
Waxhaw survivors found refuge with the Cheraw, and some moved with the Yamasee to Florida.
Some of the Waxhaw and Cheraw who stayed in North and South Carolina eventually joined the
Catawba (Swanton 1946:206). The Catawba Indians who occupied the Charlotte area fared
slightly better than most of the smaller Piedmont groups. At an early date, the Catawba Indians
became allies of the English and then of the American colonists, thus managing to secure at least a
marginal existence in the midst of colonization. In 1763, the Catawba and their attached refugee
groups settled south of Charlotte on a small reservation. This reservation was severely reduced in

' size in 1840. Catawba descendants have survived into the late twentieth century, although most of
Catawba culture, including the Catawba language. has been lost (Swanton 1946:104-105; Brown
1966).
1
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
A review of the site files in the Office of State Archmology showed that no archwological
' sites have been recorded in the project area. The former landowner stated that large areas of the
tract were once cultivated, but he recalled finding only a few prehistoric artifacts in one area, the
large, now fallow field in the southern section of the tract. He knows of no cemeteries on the tract
(Larry Black, personal communication). Almost 800 sites had been recorded in Mecklenburg
' County as a whole, but barely 200 sites had been recorded in Union County at the time of our
survey.
' One of the earlier archwological survey reports in Union County (May 1991) proposed a
prehistoric site location model for this region of the Piedmont. In this model, larger and later sites
should be found on first and second terraces adjacent to fourth, third, or second order streams (not
found in our project area). Higher site densities should occur where streams of second and higher
orders converge, especially when the confluence is adjacent to a terrace, a slight slope, or a ridge.
Sites should also be found on saddles between drainages or on ridgetoes adjacent to first or second
order streams (May 1991:18). In our study area, only the conditions described for the third section
' of the model are found, since the tract has only small first order streams, and most of those are
small, intermittent drainages.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Background research on the project area included a review of maps and secondary
historical sources in the North Carolina State Archives and in the North Carolina Collection at
UNC Chapel Hill. We also interviewed Larry Black, the former landowner whose family had
' owned the tract since the nineteenth century.
Eighteenth Century
Although traders and explorers from the Virginia colony, including John Lederer in the
1670s, visited the area via the "Trading Path to the Catawba (probably paralleling Interstate 77),
' English, Scotch-Irish, and German settlers did not start claiming land in the region until the mid
eighteenth century. Most of these immigrants came southward along the Trading Path to the
Catawba, although some came northward from South Carolina. European colonization of the
Waxhaw region (a few miles south of the project area) and nearby areas began in the mid-
eighteenth century with an influx of Scotch-Irish settlers moving southward from Pennsylvania.
The newcomers included German colonists, who settled in the region of the Sycamore Creek
project (Walden 1964:12). Settlers claimed land along Waxhaw Creek as early as 1752 and on
' Twelve Mile Creek as early as 1753 (Hofmann 1982:6,10). In 1770, Philadelphia Presbyterian
Church was organized on the site of present-day Mint Hill (Powell 1968:329). To govern the
growing population, Mecklenburg County (including all of the Sycamore Creek tract) was created
from Anson Countv in 1762 and named in honor of Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz,
' wife of George III. The county seat of Charlotte was incorporated in 1768 (Sharpe 1965; Corbitt
1975:147; Powell 1968; Blythe and Brockman 1961).

Nineteenth Century
As the population of the area grew, the numbers of citizens inconvenienced by long trips to
the Mecklenburg County seat at Charlotte and to the Anson County seat at Wadesboro also grew.
The General Assembly acceded to the request to create a new county, named Union, in 1842. A
new county seat, Monroe, was created a few miles to the east of the project area (Pickens 1990:16;
Powell 1968:507). The new boundary between Mecklenburg and Union Counties divided the
project tract (see Figure 3).
One of the most important industries in Mecklenburg County's past was the mining and
processing of gold. Nearby Charlotte was at the center of the nation's first gold rush, beginning in
the 1820s, and eventually about 100 mines opened up in widely scattered areas throughout the
county (Hanna 1903:116). Union County was home to over 30 recorded gold mines. A branch of
the United States Mint was established in Charlotte in 1836 to handle the region's gold production.
During the next quarter-century, the Charlotte Mint coined five million gold dollars (McCachren
1980:1). Although the gold fields of Mecklenburg and Union Counties were overshadowed by the
richer gold mines of California in the 1840s, mining continued on a small scale into the early
decades of the twentieth century. Many of these mines were small, family-operated affairs, played
out within a few years, but several were large, well-financed (and sometimes even profitable)
operations. Most of the local mines had closed by 1900, although a few re-opened briefly during
the Depression (Blythe and Brockman 1961:269). Several gold mines operated in the Mint Hill
region, including the Maxwell and Hagler mine and the Surface Hill mine (famous for its large
field of gold nuggets) in Mecklenburg County and the Bright Light. Long, Moore, New South,
Stewart, and Ford mines in Union County. The gold mines in the Mecklenburg County section of
the project tract (31MK769** and 31MK 772**) do not seem to be listed in the published records
of local gold mines (Carpenter 1972:30-35; Nitze and Hanna 1896; Pardee and Park 1948), and a
former landowner had not heard of any mines operating on the tract (Larry Black, personal
communication). Two sites on the tract date to the nineteenth century: 31MK774**, an antebellum
log farmhouse, and 31MK771**, a late nineteenth century farmhouse.
Twentieth Century
Three maps from the early twentieth century show us the Union County section in some
detail. The earliest (Miller 1907) is not accurate or detailed enough to let us locate farms within the
project area, although houses owned by J.B. Melton, Alexander Long, and Will Hagler appear in
the project's vicinity. The detailed soil map of Union County in 1914 shows does not seem to
show structures in the project area (Derrick and Perkins 1916).
The 1910 soil map of Mecklenburg County (Hearn and Brinkley 1910) shows structures in
the vicinities of 31MK771** and 31MK774**, but the 1911 Spratt map of Mecklenburg County
does not seem to show the area in enough accurate detail to locate or name the two structures.
FIELD METHODS
Since most of the project area is in dense forest, the survey relied heavily on transects of
screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 m (100 feet). The shovel tests measured about 35 to 45 cm
(14 to 18 inches) across and were excavated into the underlying clay subsoil. The soil from the
shovel tests was screened through 1/4 inch hardware cloth. Whenever a surveyor uncovered an
artifact in a shovel test, the survey crew dug additional shovel tests at 10 m intervals along the

transect and at right angles to it. In areas with exposed ground surfaces (some parts of the fallow
fields, eroded pastures, ta=oads, treefalls, etc.), the surveyors closely examined the area for
prehistoric and historic artifacts. None of the cultivated acreage had recently been plowed at the
time of our survey, so that no large areas of ground exposure were available for field-walking
surveys. In the older sections of forest, treefalls were common (possibly a result of Hurricane
Hugo) and closely spaced, and these upturned areas provided a useful supplement to the shovel
tests.
We defined a prehistoric site as an area where we found at least one artifact dating to the
prehistoric period (for example, a flake from manufacturing or repairing stone tools, a stone
projectile point, or a potsherd). We defined an historic site as an area containing patterned
evidence of settlement (house foundations or concentrations of building debris and domestic
artifacts, for example) or industry (a mill or still site, for example) dating between colonial
settlement in the mid-eighteenth century and 1945 (the minimum age for National Register of
Historic Places eligibility is 50 years). Practically applied, we would classify, for instance, the
remains of a house, a mill, a bridge, or a foundry dating before 1945 as an archaeological site. An
isolated fragment of whiteware or bottle glass would not be recorded as a site.
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
This section presents the inventory of archa'ological sites recorded during our survey of the
project area. We include information on the site's period of occupation (if known), the artifacts
collected, the techniques used to locate and define the site, some of the relevant environmental
details, indications of preservation or disturbance, potential for future research, and speculations
on the effects of project construction on the site. The site forms submitted to the Office of State
Archaeology list additional environmental information (elevation, distance from water, etc.). Later
sections address the question of site significance and recommendations.
The survey recorded eight archmological sites. Figure 3 shows the location of each site.
31UN201 ** historic structure site, with minor prehistoric lithic component
31 UN201
31 UN202 prehistoric lithic extraction site
31MK769** mining site
31MK770 prehistoric lithic site
31MK771 ** nineteenth century farmhouse site
31MK772** mining site
31MK773 prehistoric lithic site
31MK774** antebellum farmhouse site
The site numbers are assigned by the Office of State Arch=logy (OSA) under the national system
of site identification, in which "31" stands for North Carolina, "MK" stands for Mecklenburg
County, "UN stands for Union County, and the last numbers represent the order in which the site

10
was entered into the OSA site files for that county. The "* *" suffix indicates a historical period
site. The accession numbers are also assigned by the OSA, and each number is inked onto the
artifacts to help in future identification after curation.
31UN201** and 31UN201 (Sycamore Creek #1) (Accession #95-261)
Type of site: This small historic site is represented by a small collection of glass, whiteware, and
small brick fragments. The 1914 soil map of Union County does not show a structure here, but
the 1938 Soil Conservation Service aerial photograph seems to show a small structure, possibly a
farm outbuilding or a very small house. A minor prehistoric lithic component is represented by a
single secondary flake. The lack of diagnostic prehistoric artifacts makes it impossible to assign a
date to the prehistoric component of the site.
How recorded. During a shovel testing transect along this ridgecrest and in the vicinity of a small
grove of large shade tre-es, the surveyors found glass and brick fragments in one shovel test. Other
tests at 10 meter intervals yielded small numbers of glass and ceramics and one prehistoric flake.
Shovel test 1:
container glass, blue green (1)
flowerpot or brick fragment (1)
brick fragments (12)
Shovel test 2 (10 m north):
secondary flake, felsic (1)
Shovel test 3 (10 m east):
container glass, colorless nonleaded
window glass, light green
Shovel test 4 (10 m south):
container glass, light green (1)
window glass, light green (1)
container glass, colorless nonleaded (1)
white-bodied earthenware, ivory colored (1)
cut nail fragment (1)
Shovel test 5 (10 m south, 10 m east):
whiteware, undecorated (2)
brick fragments (3)
No other artifacts were found in other tests: 10 meters west; 20 meters north, south, or east; 10
meters north and east; 10 meters south and 10 meters west; 20 meters south and 10 meters east;
and 10 meters north and 10 meters west. The positive shovel tests outline a small historic site
measuring about 20 meters from north to south and about 10 meters from east to west,
concentrated in the small grove. The site vicinity is encircled by a shallow ditch.
Environment: The site is on a wide, grassy ridgetop of eroded Georgeville silty clay loam (GeB2)
overlooking the headwaters of Duck Creek to the northeast. The topsoil is a shallow 15 cm in
depth.

Figure =! : A coilapsed shaft at IMK769'`-*.
11
Signs of'preservation or disturbance: Terracing, ditching, and soil erosion are the major
sources of disturbance.
Research potential: The low density of artifacts, the relatively recent age of the site, and the high
degree of disturbance diminish the potential for additional research.
Impact of the projecr: The site is in the vicinity of the proposed Fairway 16.
31 UN202 (Sycamore Creek #6) (Accession #95-262
Type of sire: This prehistoric lithic site is represented by quarry debris (shatter, flakes, cores),
from an area measuring about 60 meters in diameter. The collected artifacts include one core, two
utilized flakes, three primary flakes, none secondary flakes, and one tertiary flake. The site seems
to be a prehistoric quarry, exploiting an-outcrop of felsic stone. The lack of diagnostic artifacts
makes it impossible to assign a date to the site.
How recorded: During an inspection of an area with a wide variety of exposures (an access road,
logging road ruts, many treefalls), the surveyors found a concentration of felsic stone, mostly
natural shatter, but also a number of flakes (including two apparently utilized flakes) exposed on
the surface. A shovel test 10 meters from the treef dl with a utilized flake revealed a concentration
of shatter and flakes, but also a shallow, severely eroded surface soil level, only 10 to 15 cm in
depth.
Environment: The site is on a wooded, southward facing ridgeslope of Tatum gravelly silt loam
(TaB) and eroded Georgeville silty clay loam (GeB2), overlooking a small, intermittent stream to
the south.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Logging, logging trails, and severe soil erosion are the
major sources of disturbance.
Research potential: Although the site has a relatively high density of flakes, mostly from primary
reduction activities, the absence of preserved stratigraphic contexts and the high degree of
disturbance diminish the potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The site is in the vicinity of the proposed golfing practice area.
31MK769** (Sycamore Creek #2)
Type of site: This gold-mining site is represented by a line of six circular depressions (probably
collapsed mine shafts), measuring from 15 to 25 feet in diameter, accompanied by other, smaller
depressions. Figure 4 shows one of the larger pits. Each of the larger shafts is surrounded by a
doughnut-shaped ring of mining spoil. The workings are strung out in a single line measuring
about 200 yards from north to south and oriented roughly 10 degrees east of north. The two pits
on the northern end are connected by deep trenches. The northernmost pit has been almost filled
with modern trash. The landowner did not know of any mining activity on the tract, and early
twentieth century maps of the county (for example, Spratt 1911) show no mines in the immediate
vicinity.

12
' How recorded: During a transect along a wooded ridgetop just south of NC 218, the surveyors
first saw the northernmost pit and its adjacent spoil piles.
' Environment: The site is on a broad, wooded ridgetop of eroded Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2)
overlooking a small intermittent tributary of Duck Creek.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: There appear to be no major sources of disturbance, apartt
from trash disposal in the northernmost pit. However, other remnants of mining activity (such as
machinery) have not been preserved on the site.
Research potential: The surface remains of the mine are limited to the collapsed openings of the
shafts, the tailings, and the trenches connecting the two northernmost pits. Apart from the
locational information, the site seems to lack significant research potential.
' Impact of the project. The site is in an area of proposed residential development to the east of the
swim and racquet club.
I 31 MK772 * * (Sycamore Creek #3)
Type of site: This probable mining site is represented by two small shaft openings (Figure 5),
' each measuring about 15 feet in diameter. These workings seem to lack tailings, and it seems
likely that these two openings were not deep excavations.
' How recorded: During a =sect across a ridgetoe in a cow pasture, the surveyors observed the
two exposed openings.
Environment: The site is on an open, wooded ridgetoe of Helena fine sandy loam (HeB) near
' the bottomlands along a small, intermittent tributary of Duck Creek.
Signs of presenrrtion or disturbance: There appear to be no major sources of disturbance,
apart from trash disposal in the northernmost pit. However, other remnants of mining activity
(such as machinery) have not been preserved on the site.
Research potential: The surface remains of the mine are limited to the collapsed openings of
t the shafts, the tailings, and the trenches connecting the two northernmost pits. Apart from the
locational information, the site seems to lack significant research potential
Impact of the project: The site is in an area of proposed residential development.
31MK773 (Sycamore Creek #4) (Accession #95-265)
' Type of site: This small, prehistoric Ethic site is represented by a small number of flakes, from an
area measuring about 20 meters from north to south and about 10 meters from east to west. The
lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible to assign a date to the site.
' Shovel test 1:
secondary flake (felsic)

Figure- 5: A collapsed shaft at 31MK772"'.
1 13
' secondary flake, retouched (quartz)
Shovel test 2 (10 meters south):
' primary flake (felsic)
Shovel test 3 (20 meters south):
primary flake (felsic)
angular fragment (felsic)
secondary flake (quartz)
' tertiary flakes (felsic) 3
Shovel test 4 (20 meters s/10 meters east):
tertiary flake (felsic)
' How recorded: During a shovel testing transect along a wooded ridgetop (Figure 6), the surveyors
found two flakes in one shovel test. Additional tests (Figure 7) 10 meters south, 20 meters sout h,
and 20 meters south/10 meters east of the first find spot yielded additional flakes.
Environment: The site is on a wooded ridgetop of eroded Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2)
overlooking the headwaters of Duck Creek to the south. The upper soil level containing the
' artifacts was very thin (10 - 15 cm), deflated, and gravelly.
Signs of presenonon or disturbance: Soil erosion seems to be the major source of disturbance.
' Research potential. The high degree of disturbance and the low potential for intact subsurface
remains diminish the potential for additional research.
' Impact of the project. The site is in the vicinity of the proposed fourteenth fairway and adjacent
residential developments.
31MK770 (Sycamore Creek #5) (Accession #95-263)
Type of site. This prehistoric lithic site is represented by 15 felsic secondary flakes and 3 felsic,
from an area measuring about 20 meters in diameter. The lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it
' impossible to assign a date to the site.
How recorded. During a shovel testing transect along a densely overgrown, formerly cleared
ndgetoe, the surveyors found flakes exposed in the roots of a treefall. Another treefall and surface
exposures in the vicinity provided additional flakes. Shovel tests in transects through the vicinity
turned up no additional artifacts.
i Environment: The site is on a ridgetoe of eroded Georgeville silty clay loam (GeB2), densely
covered with secondary growth, overlooking the headwaters of Duck Creek
' Signs of presenution or disturbance: Logging and severe soil erosion are the major sources
of disturbance. Deep ruts and signs of heavy earthmoving are common throughout the area.
' Research potential: The low density of artifacts and the high degree of disturbance diminish
the potential for additional research.

Figure 6: Lookma southward across 31MK773.

O
O
O •1 O
0
O
.2
•3
O
0
•4
O
Figure 7: Shovel tests at 31MK773.
O
i
N
10m
14
Impact of the project: The site is in the vicinity of the proposed eighteenth fairway.
31 MK771 * * (Sycamore Creek #7) (Accession #95-264)
Type of site: This historic-period house site is represented by a collapsed dwelling, the remnants
of an outbuilding with a metal roof, a road, and a not of escaped ornamentals. Most of the nine
shovel tests in the site were negative, but the positive tests yielded 6 glass fragments and a
fragment of a vinyl phonograph record Nails from the structure included both wire nails and cut
nails. A structure is shown in this location on the 1910 soil map of Mecklenburg County (Hearn
and Brinkley 1912). Larry Black recalled that his grandfather and grandmother lived in the house
from 1897 to 1903. Tenants then occupied the house until 1950. The artifacts seem consistent
with a house occupied during the latter half of the nineteenth century and up to the middle of the
twentieth century.
window glass, light green (1)
table glass, colorless nonleaded, molded (3)
table glass, colorless nonleaded (1)
cosmetic jar, colorless nonleaded glass, continuous thread closure (1)
phonograph record fragment, vinyl (1)
How recorded: The presence of the house was first suspected during preliminary background
work, since two structures are shown on this spot on the Midland quad. The site is now marked
by large shade trees, ornamentals (yucca, wisteria), the collapsed house (Figures 8 and 9), and at
least one collapsed outbuilding. Larry Black also reported a well on the site, but this feature could
not be located in the dense understory.
Environment: The site is on a wide, wooded ridgetop of eroded Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2)
overlooking the headwaters of Duck Creek to the north and east. The house and outbuilding
remains are densely covered with vines and escaped ornamentals.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Deterioration of the structures appears to be the major
disturbance. The eaves of the house are used as a vulture roost.
Research potential: The relatively recent age of the site, its poor degree of preservation, and the
abundance of similar, surviving structures on sites of the same period and type in Mecklenburg
County diminish the potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The site is in an area of proposed residential development.
31MK774** "The Hampton House" (Ironwood #8)
Type of sire: This antebellum site is represented chiefly by a log cabin in a state of advanced
deterioration (Figure 10). Larry Black reported that his great-grandfather, William Hampton, was
born in the house in 1850, but the house's date of construction is not known. The house consists
of a large downstairs room (the original log cabin, joined with half-dovetail notching), shed
additions to the rear (north) and side (west), and an enclosed loft. A spring on the nearby
headwaters of Duck Creek provided water for the farmstead. Shortly after William Hampton was

1

11

Figure 8: Collapsed house at 31MK771**.

Figure 9: Pegged timber-frame construction at 31MK771x-

^7
1 ?i10: Co--,-'?t?,,: ; r?,,2 -?, 1- 3l?IT<
I-- _ 0 c3S_L?L•Cl1LI! OLtS' at 1 / -! c

is
born, his mother and his twin died, and family tradition states that William was raised by a slave.
It seems likely that the farmstead might also contain the site of slave quarters.
How recorded. Our first information on the house came from an interview with Larry Black. The
structure itself, although densely overgrown and in a state of near collapse (Figure 10), is visible at
close range.
Environment: The site is on a ridgetoe of eroded Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB2) overlooking a
spring on the headwaters of Duck Creek. The site is densely overgrown with poison ivy and other
vines. Until 1965, the house was in a dairy farm pasture, and it appears that sheetwash soil
erosion has been severe.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: The cabin structure is in an advanced state of
deterioration, but its vicinity does not seem to have been disturbed by plowing or heavy
earthmoving. Sheetwash erosion has had an impact. From the perspective of archaeology,
however, the house and its features are relatively well-preserved, and the site might also
contain archaeological features of slave quarters, kitchens, barns, and other outbuildings.
Research potential: Surviving examples of antebellum single-pen log houses in Mecklenburg
County are rare. This site offers an opportunity for an archeological study of an early to mid
nineteenth century farmstead, combined with oral and documentary history available from the
previous owner.
Impact of the project: The site is in the vicinity of one of the proposed roads.
1

F1

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our evaluations of archeological significance come from the published criteria of the
National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1986:1) for establishing historic
significance for structures, sites, or objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, daft, feeling, and association and that:
A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past: or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinctions; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Some types of properties are usually not eligible for National Register status: properties less than
50 years in age; churches; cemeteries; commemorative items, such as public monuments; and
structures moved from their original locations or substantially altered If these types of properties
are an integral part of a larger National Register district, they might qualify for National Register
status (National Park Service 1986:1).

Prehistoric Sites
For most prehistoric sites, the relevant criterion is "D." Does a particular site or a set of
sites have the potential to yield information that will give us new insights into the region's
prehistoric past? If a site were excavated or intensively investigated with other means (for
example, controlled surface or plowzone collections), would the remains from the site add
significant new information on prehistoric chronology, the evolution of Native American cultures,
subsistence and economics, settlement types and patterns, camp or village structure, regional
cultural variations, stone tool manufacture in a particular time and place, or other areas of
prehistoric research?
The Sycamore Creek prehistoric sites are all Ethic sites, so far lacking diagnostic
artifacts that might allow us to estimate dates for the occupations. All of the known remains
appear to be confined to superficial and eroded "A" horizons. Except for the lithic extraction site at
31UN202, the sites are also limited in size.
31 UN201 prehistoric Ethic site (isolated flake in historic site)
31 UN202 prehistoric Ethic extraction site
31MK770 prehistoric Ethic site
31MK773 prehistoric Ethic site
16
J
17
One method for evaluating site significance has been suggested by Glassow (1977). His
framework divides archwological resources into three categories: items (artifacts, pollen, bones,
etc.); its (strata, lenses, feature fills); and surfaces (living floors and rooms). )Our sites have
"items" (artifacts) but little else.) These three categories of resources or site elements have several
characteristics or properties that influence their usefulness for archxological research and their
ability to provide significant new insights into prehistory or history. These characteristics include
the following:
1. Varietv. Does a site have unusual or rare components, attributes, and artifact types, or does it
contain redundant information obtainable from many other, similar sites in the region? For
instance, does a site have a relatively rare Paleo- Indian component, or is it one of the area's very
common, low density lithic scatters without diagnostic artifacts? Most of our prehistoric sites fall
into the latter category. 31UN202 is a partial exception, because of the high density of shatter and
flakes, but in other characteristics it is similar to the common lithic scatters of the upland Piedmont.
2. Q= ti . Within a regional settlement pattern, sites will vary in size and in the frequency or
can include large, dense, multi-component sites (probably representing frequently re-occupied base
camps), small, temporary camps, and isolated finds representing short-term hunting or gathering
activities. These site differences probably reflect differences in settlement patterns and local
subsistence strategies, which changed through time. Studies of settlement and subsistence patterns
within a period and their changes between periods would ideally take into account sites within the
full range of "resource" size, frequency, and density. Large, high-density sites, as well as small,
low-density sites and a range of sites in between would all be considered significant sites, if they
could be used to answer important questions about prehistory or history. For practical purposes,
however, sites amenable to research would have to contain at least a minimum number of
"resources" (for instance„ diagnostic artifacts to fit the site into a temporal framework, or tool types
to suggest the type of settlement and its purpose). Our prehistoric sites tend to fall at the end of the
site spectrum with very few artifacts of any kind and few or no diagnostics and other tools. These
sites lack the minimum quantity of resources needed for productive research.
3. Clarity. Are the "resources" in a site separated or physically distinct from each other? For
instance, is a single, discrete component present? If not, can components from different periods be
distinguished within a site, or are they mixed together in the plowzone? Some of the small lithic
sites in our inventory probably represent single component sites. However, the lack of
stratification in the thin and eroded soils makes physical separation of components unlikely.
4. to . What is the site's degree of preservation? Do the items, deposits, or surfaces
maintain some degree of completeness? All of the prehistoric sites in our inventory have
experienced severe disturbances from farming or logging and subsequent soil erosion.
5. Environmental Context. Does a site's location give us important information on the purpose of
the settlement or the activities that took place there? Since we probably cannot assign dates or
functions for most of the Sycamore Creek prehistoric sites, their environmental contexts do not
provide much information on prehistoric settlements.
Historic Sites
For most historic-period archmological sites. the most relevant criterion is also "D,"
and we must ask whether these historic sites have the potential to produce significant
information and new insights on the region's history.

18
Gold mining sites
Are the remains of mining activities at 31MK769** and 31MK772** archeologically
significant? Could they provide significant new insights into the history of mining in the state?
Gold mining was one of nineteenth century North Carolina's few heavy industries. In its heyday
before the California Gold Rush, the gold industry had a significant impact on a few small areas of
the Piedmont and the mountains. This importance is reflected in two of North Carolina's National
Register properties: Reed Gold Mine in Cabarrus County and McCulloch's Gold Mill in Guilford
County. Reed Gold Mine State Historic Site (which is also a National Historic Landmark)
contains the remains of a tunnel, at least 20 mine shafts, and the sites of miners' houses, offices,
stables, offices, and mills. That mining site covers about 350 acres. McCulloch's Gold Mill
(Guilford County) is a massive stone structure built in 1832 to process gold-bearing ores. The site
includes two dams, a mill race, traces of other building foundations, and tailings (Barnett and
Brenner 1978). Those two large-scale mining sites clearly contain significant archarological
remains, but most of the gold mining sites in the state are much smaller and not as immediately
impressive as Reed Gold Mine or the McCulloch Gold Mill. What constitutes an archeologically
significant site? Many Piedmont and mountain gold mines were small, short-lived operations.
Standards of significance have not yet been formulated in North Carolina for these types of gold
mining sites. The following discussion outlines a framework for evaluating the archeological
research potential of these remains.
Donald Hardesty (1987, 1988) provides useful discussions of the archeological
significance of mining sites, with criteria for evaluating a mining site or district from several
research perspectives. Significant mining sites can provide information in a wide range of
historical subjects:
I. Environment;
2. Technology of mining;
3. Food remains and other aspects of household consumption;
4. Organization of households, settlements, and other social groups;
5. Demography of the mining community;
6. Ideology;
7. Chronology.
In the Sycamore Creek mining sites, represented only by tailings and pits, many types of
information are missing. From the perspectives of technology, food remains, household and
settlement organization, demography, ideology, and chronology, the site appears to be
uninformative. From the aspect of "environment," the site seems to offer some information,
chiefly on the selection of mining locations. If any mine shafts remain intact beneath the collapsed
entrances, they could also provide technological information. However, those shafts are
completely blocked from the surface and have probably been re-flooded by ground water, so that
proposing archeological investigations of the shafts would probably be completely unrealistic.
Hardesty (1987:83-84) also describes a "significance evaluation matrix," which uses a
three- part geographical scale:
1. How does a mining site fit into a "world system"? That is, how does the site reflect its
connection with the world at large at the time the mine was operated? Does a mining site
contain information on the ways in which the mine and its miners related to the society at
large?
2. How does the site relate to its "mining district" (referring chiefly to the community that
may grow up around a mine or a set of mines)?

19
3. Does the site contain an informative "feature system" (structures, mining equipment,
house remains, cemeteries, strata, mine shafts, roads, etc.)?
With the accumulation of archmological information on other mining sites (the Reed mine
and the McCulloch mill) and documentary evidence on local mining practices, we are in a better
position to place these two sites in relation to the Charlotte mining district, although we probably
could not relate it to a "world system." Little of the "feature systems of the Sycamore Creek mines
seems to have survived, except for the shafts and ore dumps.
Noble (1989:1-2) also discusses the problems of assigning significance to the remains of
some mining operations, which he describes as
"areas which have attracted enough attention to imprint the land with the discernible
marks of mining activity, yet the financial return was too insignificant to warrant
the construction of substantial buildings or structures. Thus, we find ourselves in
the difficult position of attempting to evaluate little more than a ditch, a shaft
opening, a road, or a collection of prospect pits".
He suggests a yardstick of archaeological values that would include "visibility" (standing
structures, such as mill buildings and worker housing) and "focus" (archmological features, such
as mine shafts, house sites, privies, cemeteries, and tailings). Reed Gold Mine has industrial and
domestic remains in the form of features (house sites, shafts, and mill foundations) but almost no
standing structures, so it possesses "focus," but relatively little "visibility." McCulloch's Gold
Mill, with its stone mill house surrounded by archmological features, has both "focus" and
visibility. The two Sycamore Creek sites have no "visibility" and only marginal "focus" in the
form of shaft openings and some tailings.
The mining remains at 31MK769** and 31MK772** do not appear to be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
House sites
The site at 31MK771** is a farmhouse dating to the late nineteenth century, a type
represented by hundreds of other examples, including standing structures, in Mecklenburg County
alone. A survey of farm housing in North Carolina conducted in 1934 found that almost half of
the farmhouses then occupied were built after about 1910, and that over 80% had been built after
about 1885 (Agricultural Experiment Station 1935:3), so the large number of farmhouses from the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries should not be surprising. Other, more intact farm
complexes already recorded in the Mecklenburg County historic structures inventory files
(maintained by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History) would provide far superior
research avenues for studies of Mecklenburg County's late nineteenth and early twentieth century
rural farmsteads. Considering the site's relatively recent age and the large number of similar
farmsteads (many with standing structures and potential for oral history, as well) in nearby areas of
rural North Carolina, this historic-period site does not seem significant enough to warrant
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
The historic component at J1UN201 ** appears to be the remnant of a twentieth century
farm outbuilding or a very small house. The low density of artifacts, the relatively recent age of
the site, and the high degree of disturbance diminish the potential for additional research.

20
31MK774** is a surviving example of an antebellum single-pen log house now rar
Mecklenburg County. The structure is in a very poor state of preservation, but from the e in
perspective of arch=logy, the house and its features are relatively well-preserved. The site might
also contain archaological features such as slave quarters, kitchens, barns, and other outbuildings.
The site offers an opportunity for an archmological study of an early to mid nineteenth century
farmstead, combined with oral and documentary history available from the previous owner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
' We do not recommend additional archzeological investigations at Sycamore Creek's
prehistoric sites:. 31UN201, 31UN202, 31MK770, and 31MK773. We do not recommend
additional archmological investigations at the two mining sites (31MK769** and 31MK772**) or
at two of the house sites (31 UN201 ** and 31MK771 **).
For the antebellum house site at 31MK774**, we recommend one of tw
action, depending on construction plans for the area: two courses of
' 1) If the house and its vicinity are outside of construction areas, we recommend
preservation of the site, perhaps in a small common area or green space.
2) If the house and its site are inside construction areas, then we recommend Phase H test
excavations and recording of the structure. The test excavations should focus on
establishing the dates of fast occupation of the site and on locating remains of
outbuildings (detached kitchens, slave quarters, etc.) that might have stood near the
house. This phase of work should include archival research on the site and its former
occupants and interviews with Larry Black to record an oral history of the site.

1

21
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Percy G.
1980 Travelers and travel liars, 1660-1800. Dover Publications, New York.
Agricultural Experiment Station
1935 North Carolina Farm Housing. Agricultural Experiment Station, North
Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, Bulletin 301.
Barnett, Angela, and James T. Brenner
1978 McCulloch's Gold Mill. National Register of Historic Places nomination
form, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Blythe, LeGette, and Charles Raven Brockmann
1961 Hornet's nest: the story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
McNally, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Brown, Jane Douglas Summers
1966 The Catawba Indians: the people of the river. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States. American
Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.
Carpenter, P. Albert
1972 Gold resources of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Information Circular 21.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5):1-130.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips
1984 Soil systems in North Carolina. North Carolina State University,
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin 467.
Derrick, B.B., and S.O. Perkins
1916 Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture.
Glassow, Michael A.
1977 Issues in evaluating the significance of archaeological resources.
American Antiquity 4(3):413-420.
Hanna, George B.
1903 History of mining in Mecklenburg County. In Tompkins, Daniel Augustus,
1903: History of Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte (volume 2,
the appendix). Observer Printing House, Charlotte, North Carolina.

' Hardesty, Donald L.
1987 The archaeological significance of mining districts. Proceedings of the
Workshop on Historic Mining Resources: Defining the Research Questions
for Evaluation and Preservation. State Historical Preservation Center, South
Dakota Historical Society, Verrnilhon, South Dakota.
1988 The archaeology of mining and miners: a view from the Silver State.
Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series 6.
Hearn, W.E., and L.L. Brinkley
1912 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Hobbs, Samuel Huntington, Jr.
1930 North Carolina: economic and social University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Hofmann, Margaret M.
1982 Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764: abstracts of land patents.
' Roanoke News, Weldon, North Carolina.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
' Hudson, Charles, Chester DePratter, and Marvin Smith
1981 The route of Juan Pardo's exploration in the interior southeast, 1566-1568.
' Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Lederer, John
1672 The discoveries of John Lederer, in three several marches from Virginia,
' to the west of Carolina, and other pans of the continent: begun in March
1669, and ended in September 1670. Reprinted by Readex Microprint, 1966.
' Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina (by John Lawson). University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
' May, Alan
1991 An Archmological Survey Reconnaissance of Lake Park Subdivision,
Crooked Creek Watershed, Union County, North Carolina. Report submitted
to Mathison Land Company, Indian Trail, 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.
' Munsey, Cecil
1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, New York.
National Park Service
' 1986 Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms. National Register
Bulletin 16.

22

23
Nitze, Henry B., and George B. Hanna
1896 Gold deposits of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Bulletin 3.
Noble, Bruce J.
1989 A National Register perspective: evaluating historic mining resources.
National Park Service, CRM Bulletin 12 (2).
North Carolina Geological Survey
1985 Geologic Map of Nonh Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1973 North Carolina fluted projectile points - survey 'report number two.
Southern Indian Studies 25:3-60.
Pickens. Suzanne
1990 "Sweet Union:" An Architectural and Historical Survey of Union County,
North Carolina. Union County Board of Commissioners, et al., Monroe,
North Carolina.
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Redwine, John M.
1925 Union County Rich in Historical Heritage. Monroe Journal, October 23, 1925.
Sharpe, Bill
1958 A new geography of North Carolina (vol. 2). Sharpe Publishing Company,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Spratt, C.H., and J.B. Spratt
1911 Map of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137.
Thompson, Edgar T.
1926 Agricultural Mecklenburg and industrial Charlotte: social and economic.
Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Tompkins, Daniel Augustus
1903 History of Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte (volume 2, the
appendix). Observer Printing House, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man-induced soil erosion on the southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil
Conservation Society of America, Iowa.

Walden, H. Nelson
1964 History of Union County. Heritage Printers, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ward, Trawick
1983 A review of archwology in the North Carolina Piedmont: a study of change.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina: an Archaeological Symposium, edited
by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, Raleigh.
Ward, Trawick, and Joffre L. Coe
1976 Final report: an archmological evaluation of the Falls of the Neuse reservoir.
Ms, on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Willey, Gordon
' 1966 An introduction to North American archaeology: volume 1, North and Middle
America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

24

r

An Archaeological Survey or the
Proposed Sycamore Creels Golt and Country Club Development,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina.
Introduction
This proposal has been written by Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.
in response to a request from LandDesign Engineering Services for proposals to
perform an archaeological survey of a 400 acre tract of land, the proposed Sycamore
Creek Golf and Country Club property, located in Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
North Carolina, The purpose of the survey is to conduct an archaeological
investigation to locate potentially significant prehistoric or historical archaeological
sites in compliance with relevant federal and state regulations.
Background Research
The survey of the project area will begin with an archaeological and historical
overview of the project area and its region. (This phase is called "Archival
Research" in the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines,) The "overview" is defined
by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer's description of
archaeological survey types,
The purpose of an overview is basically to consolidate all of the
available information about the nature, distribution, and significance
of the known archaeological resources and past archaeological record
in the region ...The overview should result in a document which can be
used by both archaeologists and non-archaeologists in developing
preservation plans, land use plans, and plans for future archaeological
research.
' In Archjev,1g4,t WS-vr;re • Pruc4iW tl4mv fur Grvat Prvjvcts
(pages 3-4), by Mark Mathis and Dolores Hall, North Carolina
Division of Archives and History.

This phase of the work will require archival research in the North Carolina State
Archives, in the North Carolina Collection at U.N.C.-Chapel Hill, and in local historical
sources in Mecklenburg and Union Counties. We will also interview local historians
and avocatioaal archaeologists for the locations of known or suspected sites in the
area. The historical overview will also include a review of previous archaeological
reports and site forms (on file with the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History) from this section of the Piedmont in order to locate known sites in the
vicinity and to help put the project area and its sites into a regional context, which is
necessary for an evaluation of the significance of sites recorded during the survey,

2
Field Survey
In areas with exposed ground surfaces, the surveyors will cross the exposed
ground with systematic, closely spaced transects to check for prehistoric and historic
artifacts on the surface, Since the ground surface visibility in most of the survey
area is likely to be relatively low, the chances are small that archaeologists will find
artifacts from every site exposed on the surface. In areas without ground surface
visibility, the survey will use systematic shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters or 100
feet. The soil from each shovel test will be screened through 1/4 inch mesh, which
improves artifact recovery and cuts down on individual surveyor error, Shovel tests
will not be excavated where standing water is present or where the slopes are too
steep for habitation. Slopes will be checked for quarry sites or rockshelters, Each
shovel test will measure approximately 30 centimeters on a side, Each shovel test will
be backfilled after its excavation. To supplement the shovel tests, the surveyors will
also use soil augers with the shovel tests in areas of the river floodplains (if there are
any in the project area) showing some potential for sites in deeply buried soil
horizons.
If a surveyor finds a site within the project area, the field crew would then
define the boundaries of the site by examining exposed ground surfaces or by
digging and screening additional shovel tests at right angles to the transect. In
addition to these transects, we will attempt to locate and record any previously
recorded sites in the project area, as well as sites mentioned in the historical records
or shown on historical maps.
In abandoned cemeteries with visible markers-, sinks, or other surface
indications (e.g. ground-covering periwinkle), we will record inscriptions (if
present) and attempt to estimate the number of graves present, as well as the size of
the cemetery. The Office of State Archaeology defines an abandoned cemetery as one
which has not been used for interment within the last 15 years.
For the purposes of this survey, we will define a prehistoric site as one that
contains one or more artifacts dating to the prehistoric period (unless the artifact
was placed in its find spot through modern disturbances, such as the placement of fill
dirt). An historic site will be defined as the remains of an occupation (a house, for
instance) or an activity showing patterned, purposeful behavior (for example, an
industrial site) before 1945 (the cut-off date for National Register eligibility is 50
years).
Severely disturbed areas (e.g,, existing road shoulders or embankments,
borrow areas, etc.) and wetlands will be eliminated from the survey. These
unsurveyed areas (if they cover significantly large areas) will be indicated on maps
in the final report.
Some evidence of intact archaeological deposits can occasionally be found in
shovel tests, but the most reliable evaluations of a site's importance, if significant
deposits are suspected from survey data, usually must come from excavations of
larger areas during a test phase. Before conducting the survey, it is usually
impossible to predict whether significant sites requiring test excavations exist in the
project area. Tests would only come later (if at all), in a second phase of work
following the survey's identification of a site with evidence of intact archaeological

3
remains. Examples of sites that might be recommended for tarts would be a
prehistoric village or campsite with evidence of intact cultural features, or a historic
house or industrial site with structural remains and artifacts that might give us
t significant archaeological information about life in the Piedmont during the
centuries between colonization and 1945

Analysis
Prehistoric ceramics will be measured and classified according to attributes
such as inclusions ("temper type"), surface treatments, rim forms, and thickness.
Lithic and ceramic analysis will use the projectile point and ceramic types described
by Coe (1964) and standard classifications of other lithic artifact types. In addition to
the chronological placement of artifacts from each site, we will attempt to place each
site in its environmental setting in order to develop models or describe patterns of
prehistoric settlement systems and land-use. We will attempt to use the survey data
and the synthesis of previous work in the area to advance our understanding of Paleo
Indian, Archaic, and Woodland cultures and their use of the region.
Historic artifacts will be analyzed according to systems of classification such as
those described by South (1977), Noel Hume (1976), and Munsey (1970), As far as
possible, the analysis of historic artifacts and their sites will attempt to relate the
' remains to the documentary record and to historical questions about the area's
settlement by various European and African ethnic groups and the evolution of small
farms, plantations, and industries in the Piedmont,
' Curation
Each artifact will be washed and then numbered in ink with accession
numbers obtained from the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, ARC has
' facilities for short-term curation of these artifacts, but arrangements for their
permanent curation as a study collection will be made with a local institution
(probably the Division of Archives and History) following the conclusion of the
' project,
' Evaluations of Significance
Our evaluations of archaeological significance rely on the published criteria
' of the National Register of Historic Places for establishing historic significance for
structures, sites, or objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, craft, feeling, and association and that:
r A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
4
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinctions; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history. (National Park Service 1986)
Normally ezempted from National Register eligibility are items less than 50 years in
age, churches, cemeteries, and structures that have been moved from their original
locations or substantially altered, Cemeteries are extended protection through state
laws on human burials and skeletal remains, however.
Project Impacts
Each site will be analyzed with respect to the proposed project's impact on site
preservation.
Report
At the conclusion of the fieldwork, we will submit a management summary,
listing the recorded sites and the project's impact on each. The draft and final
versions of the report of archaeological investigations will follow the format
required by the Guidelines fpr the Preparation of Reports of Archaeolo?tica Surveys
and Evaluations, issued by the Office of State Archaeology of the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History. The final, illustrated report will have a full
description of our background research and its results, our survey methods and any
sites recorded, methods of artifact analysis and site interpretation, standards of site
significance with documented evaluations of site potential, and statements about the
relative sensitivity of various areas from an archaeological viewpoint. Any
recommendations for or against further archaeological work (such as additional data
recovery) or for preservation of sites will be supported with evidence from the
survey with reference to specific, recognized areas of
prehistoric and historic knowledge that would benefit from further attention to the
site. Any recommendations made against further work or for specific, additional
work on the sites will be subject to review by the State Historic Preservation Officer
in the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. We will also provide the stag
with the required computerized forms describing each archaeological site located.
Personnel
The Principal Investigator will be Thomas H. Hargrove, who has a Master's
degree in Anthropology from George Washington University and a Bachelor's degre
in the same field from the University of New Mexico. He has been employed by ARC
as an archaeologist for 15 years and was previously employed as an archaeologist by
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History for over three years,

5
' Schedule
' We estimate that the time required for the completion of background research,
fieldwork, analysis, and a preliminary report is two weeks. The time needed for the
completion of a draft final report and the required site forms is an additional week.
' This schedule is subject to change, however, if the initial survey finds sites
requiring test excavations.

L

6
References Cited
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Throw tionsofthe
Amerkuw PhilvaWIPhicul society 54 (5):1-130,
Munsey, Cecil
1970 The Must Wend Guide W Collecting Bottles Hawthorn Books, New York.
National Park Service
1986 Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms.
Nrrtiona?f Rr?fster Bulletin 16.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1976 A Guide to the Artifacts ofColoaial America Knopf, New York.
South, Stanley A.
1977 AfethodAad Thear7id 8istorfc?lArchruwlo?y Academic Press, New York.