19961002 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19961018

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
LTX.X
1:3 FE F=1
November 26, 1996
Mecklenburg County
DWQ Project # 961002
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Russell Ranson
Crosland Land Company
141 Scaleybark Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28209
Dear Mr. Ranson:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.681 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
developing a residential subdivision at Blakeney Health Property, as you described in your application dated 18
October 1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3022 and 2671. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit
Numbers 12 and 26 when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. A deed restriction or conservation easement shall be added to all remaining wetlands to prevent future
fill. Stormwater shall be directed to flow into wetland A/B to provide water quality protection. No fill shall
be added to wetland AB in order to protect its uses. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will
expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
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 Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
qe ton Howard, Jr.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Len Rindner
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch 961002.1tr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
November 19, 1996
MEMO TO: John Dorney
FROM: Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Michael L. Park4f/
SUBJECT: Wetland Staff Report and Recommendations
Permit Year: 96 Permit No.: 0001002 County: Meck.
Applicant Name: Crosland Land - Blakeney Heath Development
Project Type: Residential Permit Type: NW 26, 12
COE No.: DOT No.:
Recd from CDA: APP Date from CDA: 10/18/96
Regional Office: MRO Stream Class: C
River Basin/Subbasin: 030838
Wetland Impact: Y
Wetland Requested: 0.441
Wetland Score: 61, 17, 25
Mitigation?: N
Mitigation Size: N/A

Stream Index No.: 11-138-3
Wetland Type: Headwater Forest
Wetland Acre Est.?: Y
Water Impacted by Fill?: Y
Mitigation Type: N/A
Request More Info?: N
Wetland Rating Sheet Attached?: Y (See application submittal)
Project Changes/Conditions been discussed with applicant?: Y
Comments: Wetland area A/B should definitely be avoided. Concern
exists regarding impacts related to adjacent site construction.
Special care should be exercised by the applicant to assure that
wetland area A/B is not negatively affected by adjacent construction
activities. The staff of this Office concurs with the minimization
efforts utilized by the applicant in the development of this project.
Issuance of 401 Certification is recommended.
cc: MRO
Central Files
r`' ,
96 1002
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:'
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):?
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
RECEjV'CC
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OC 1 R
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION Ejvv//jO 6
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMMNT ? NIAv?o199vc6s
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
_. OWNERS NAME:
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
SUBDIVISION NAME:
C'TY: ?Al-IO & STATE: A16- ZIP CODE:
2 fzo`l
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
M.=_ILING ADDRESS ABOVE) :
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) : (WORK)
?. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:

5rr e, 4$ G&DVL
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERI PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: ?f ?z?4 NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: C
1
Y
f?SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): 6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: /1/"-ed -4Y762T±:'I Uj S1 /1; 1? C•K;

RIVER BASIN: ("%7T[.Lc/ gmce? / / ^
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-11)? YES [ ] NO [--)-'IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO P?-
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A. COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
9a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO -? IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
9b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERM4 REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [ IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: ±-0-7
9b. ESTIMATED TOTALL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
'
01" errs elic;f 10-%41
2

10a. NUMBER O ACRE $ F JEJLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: ?`{{ EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER: t • /0 /61cJ/CA An W'C' ar'.a(
DRAINAGE : * 2AJ
( = n TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED :
4-71
, /-).o ^'d . /InOd <zhel#
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION)
LENGTH BEFORE: QD?/ FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours) : ± 3 FT
WIDTH AFTER: 3 f FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: O? Z FT AFTER: Z FT
(2) STR'_?`^ CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK AIL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN-CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: w l a?'-rR?rG?QY7
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) :
Sc - a gacAe-d ageg'.•--
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Gt*Zl%td rh0.-7
± •?Z t??lQ'Y1C?t /n 1?T5 w? /l be, /inncc ?.o< to SS
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Sw,
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PR
(ATTAC OOJECT. RDATE
ESPONSES
CONTACTED: /
FROM THESE AGENCIES.) 16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED:
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUB7-IC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [] NO [ (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES (I NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN ThT TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.) )
DATE
1
5
LEONARD S. FUNDNER
Environmental Planning Consultant 7113 Hickory Nut Drive
Landscape Architecture Raleigh, NC 27613
Land Planning [phone]
October 8, 1996
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Mr. John R. Dorney - Water Quality Planning
Division of Water Quality - NCDEHNR
Environmental Science Laboratories
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Mike Parker
NCDEHNR - Division of Water Quality
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Blakenev_Heath Pronerty - Reauest for
Dear Sirs:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Russell Ranson of the Crosland Land Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, I am
requesting your review of the enclosed plans. I have also attached other information pertaining to the site.
The proposed use of the site is a single family community. Southwest Charlotte and Mecklenburg County is
experiencing rapid economic growth in conjunction with the Charlotte Outer Belt (I-485) corridor. This site
is also in the general vicinity of the large Ballantyne and future Landen Project. During the "due diligence"
period wetland delineation was conducted. The wetland area was verified by Steve Lund of the USACE on
September 18, 1996.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Most of the site is a currently active agricultural site with scattered specimens and grouping of trees.
Woodland areas tend to occur on the wetter areas of the property. Generally the site consists of well drained
Mecklenburg and Iredell B soils. Wetlands seem to occur within an Iredell A inclusion.
Summary of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Wetland Hydrology
The ponds, and unnamed intennittent/perennial tributaries of Six Mile Creek are considered surface waters.
Wetland hydrology is provided by a perched water table, seeps, and springs over a clayey subsoil, and
ponding/flooding in the areas along the tributaries.
i3ydrophZic Vegetation
Vegetation in wetland areas and along tributaries is dominated by Facultative, Facultative Wet, and Obligate
Vegetation and includes red maple, hornbeam, sweet gum, alder, green ash, willow oak, elm, bush
dogwood, and others. Herbaceous plants include sedges, needle rush, and other typical wetland species.
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE, Mr. John R Dorney - NCDWQ Water Quality Planning
Request for NWP 26
Page 2, October 8, 1996
Hydric Soil
According to Soil Conservation Service, Technical Guide-Section II-A-2, June 1991, IrA (Iredell) are listed
as Map Units with inclusions of Hydric Soils in Mecklenburg County. Other hydric soils created by
SUMMARY OF WETLAND AREAS
Area A/B Headwater Forest (PFOI A) = ± 0.686 acre
Area C Headwater Forest (PFO 1 A) = ± 0.185 acre
Area D/E Headwater Forest (PFO I A) = ±0.114 acre
Area F Emergent (PEMIC) = ± 0.022 acre
Pond (PUBM) = ± 0.240 acre
Intermittent Tributary (PFO1 A) = + 0.06 acre
Total Jurisdictional Waters =± 1.307 acres
Results ofPreliminaa Discussions with USA CE
According to Steve Lund of the USACE Area "A/B" should be avoided. The remaining areas would be
eligible for a Nationwide Permit #26 pending review.
Results of Preliminary Wetland Evaluation/NCDEM Guidelines
Area "AB" had high value for water storage, bank stabilization, and pollution removal, with moderate value
for aquatic and wildlife habitat (See attached evaluation forms). Based on this evaluation significant impacts
to this area and the stream were avoided and minimized to the extent feasible.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
Impacts to the highest value wetland area and contiguous tributary on this site have been avoided and/or
minimized. Impacts to wetlands are limited to the following:
1) "AB"- Headwater Forest (PFO 1 A) = + 0.10 acre
2) "C"- Headwater Forest (PSS 1 A) = + 0.185 acre
3) "D/E% Headwater Forest (PFOIA) = ±0.114 acre
4) "F"- Emergent (PEMIC) = ± 0.022 acre
5) "Pond" = ± 0.240 acre
6) "Channel" = + 0.02 acre
Total Jurisdictional Waters Impacted = ± 0681 acres*
* Area "A; B" is apparently well drained and potentially useable for recreation during late spring and
summer months. The developer requests the permission to add a natural porous mulch to the area of an
approximate 8'W2 "depth as a softer pad below playground equipment to minimize injuries from falls. The
mulch provides the additional benefit of minimizing compaction. The approximate area to be mulched is
expected to be approximately .10 acre. Drainage trenches, ditches, french and/or tile drains, or other
methods to drain the area will not be employed unless approved by the USACE and/or NCDWO.
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney - NCDWQ
Request for NWP 26, Page 3, October 8, 1996
MinbWzadon Measures
A) The plan indicates that the wetland area with the highest value will be preserved. Storm drainage
will be utilized to support the hydrology. The velocity and discharge spread to minimize erosion and
channelization.
B) As much forested buffer as possible will be retained on this project site as feasible around the
wetland as generally indicated on the attached plan. Although the proposed impacts include the low value
wetlands in several lots, the intent is to save the trees where possible. The hydrology of these wetlands are
highly susceptable to impacts on adjacent uplands due to being primarily fed by surface drainage within a
very small drainage area.
C) 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 to be preserved. Methods to prevent short term impacts will be inspected regularly and
maintained during construction of the project. Wetlands to be clearly marked prior to construction to
prevent accidental damage to wetlands. The contractors will 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.
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.
C) The construction limits will be clearly marked and area protected from sedimentation and siltation
utilizing silt fencing, barricades, and other Best Management Practices.
D) Hydrology to the existing wetlands will be maintained to the extent feasible. Stormwater will be
utilized to support the hydrology to Area"A/B".
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 -
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
Schweinitz's sunflower thrives in full sun characteristic of successional fields, margins, and forested
openings. A review of USGS (Weddington Quad) Maps at the Natural Heritage Program at NCDEHNR in
Raleigh did not indicate any endangered species previously identified on the site. Since Schweinitz's
sunflower is known to occur in Iredell soils, the site was surveyed. According to the survey, Schweinitz's
sunflower and it's habitat was not identified.
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney - NCDWQ
Request for NWP 26, Page 4, October 8, 1996
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 are waters less than three
feet deep with a soft mud, muddy sand, or shady gravelly substrate. It is normally restricted to protected
silted areas or under banks especially associated with obstructions such as stumps or fallen trees. Its current
distribution according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service is limited to portions of two streams -- Goose
Creek and Waxhaw Creek -- and a small river originating from rural areas in Union County. Therefore it is
not expected to occur on this site.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project site is in early succession with pockets of forested areas in the central portion of the site are in
the later stages of succession to forest from agricultural activities. There are no indications of any existing
structures on the project site or adjacent areas. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the Survey and
Planning Branch (SPB) of the NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) was visited to review existing mapping on the USGS Quad maps, if any. The purpose of this review
was to determine if there was previously identified sites in the project area.
Based on the review of the maps at the OSA and at the SPB, previously identified or surveyed sites were
indicated on the maps within the project area. Due to the proximity of significant historic and prehistoric
sites in the immediate vicinity the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources recommended a
comprehensive survey be conducted to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that
may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. This survey was conducted by New South
Associates in August, 1996. According to the report no site in the project area appears to be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and additional archaeological work in the project area
was not recommended. The report is included in this submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office for
their concurrence.
The aquatic systems in the project area consist of headwater wetlands and intermittent tributaries of Six Mile
Creek. A variety of wildlife is supported by these systems including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
fish, insects, mollusks, and crustaceans. Therefore strict adherence to an approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan will be maintained during the construction period in order to control degradation of water
quality downstream and protect the areas to be preserved.
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.
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE, Mr. John R. Dorney - NCDWQ
Request for NWT 26, Page 5, October 8, 1996
CONCLUSION
The goal of the site plan to help balance the environmental consequences of this development by preserving
the highest value Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. remaining on the site. The undisturbed wetland areas and
the mitigation sites will be preserved by the applicant or by a group designated by the owner for this
purpose. The preserved areas will be managed as a wetland system of high value.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. I would be more than happy
to meet with you at the site at your earliest convenience at the site, if necessary. Thank you for your
considera ' n.
i e
PW
Environmental Planning Consultant
cc: Mr. Russ Ranson - Crosland Land Company
141 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
`C+
CHARLOTTE
q COUNTRY
\p?-OAT SCHOOL,
O
OM
i ?
0
,?F- ? r_

OARS L sm. cl

% a
se
Haa $
RL

U
W c
an

H° sS :.OOIE P ON, ?'IIBRARY ? I P y 4 .•.
r 1 CI fr?Y4k'.l+a1•t•. I CENTER / (q/ ??. ` f
a 11V
fp 4 T }'
ARLETTIE
;a• MIDDLE SCHOOL e , •l ? i- 1 ? ? 16 j??\ r ? ? i ,? "°"a? J wa.
'? tRa = w l ti-.
W PINEVILIE.F? }? f7tY. c P `? 1 - ._
RD ¢ at I • i
I s„ C'WC, t
Y? 4_ ?' - t, iD 4 i / a
Crar Cl
1 .? _,° S # F fib, 4 ? J t??yga?H,yaa ?n .
1 elln Ct yf ?S rj?Rj ? i -.`«4 a
a 6
?b/ P 5 Wa CHARLOTTE N AM
LATIN
$, SCHOOL
My 9 eG In '"4
? ` I G
I A-
. ` ',tir.;y'i \ AY c W G L.4? ?Ir Ro"e't' 3 y .'j S c`
21
.. L oars _ ,Qgq?x 5 °irotn
sLor
?; bwY P ? I a 4 a _ f p ? _. a q //
::?:it}: ? ? ? Ra,a° Smn Gale to S ? 9lntl?`
•?• aw . PI:'Ay Way a AN ? ?'
k ? Y 9s o t a
# f??' TIt??` I? ? °. 3a ry? ? Me°C Ln 7 ? aaeweG McICEE ? '
' l :.My S d LL u,°e o? T? G - GELOEM.' Ln
'$ - -'s oy `' 9 NCi e R N ? :+GmsI?I Ct ?4 ? y yK?"M • 1GHOOl
_ ?' ?r T n 7
Pa W Q a 9 -?_'
1 ` •?."???? ??' ? " S PR VIDENCE - , en "sMM n RD ? McKEE Be- C' 71LCfy ? ?" - ?'_...
28 7 ?nxtl? `a W 8 5
H ' d AD ss p° Dr 1 ? ? _ . ' ? d 9/S V<a C
ea ?` 9 i ;1 b°' ss
S- W \ Q?c; a. f 3 , Ca..c, ? n `ps I
P Pe c o °? `4 a tid° pNF" ?y,¢°s $ ? ?r ?a\
I
l , 4 4
W A i 1R- r
\ S d SITE
RD '; d aaRS Fann ?" e? ?narb
P palhsbu Or
got T: 1 e s
`? ? Dal tt ? L° ; BN° ? S R al mG ? ya Tr
yR r 4 a s _ s ca,?,?v c' a
668 a -P r' . ? a?
Old L
a
r ?? c+ ImunOi .+? I ? ? ?
a,
Rd
c,a Cl "
en F d
naR°" 4'$F vtp ~ c r;leeK 1 d /???
1 °aE? s F EQD1N?i1VN_
Ad a
64
GENERAL VICINITY MAP
16
Pf0 \ ?..
1A
`I}' (r.\) J ?PEMICh:
PFUC
0 ('{H
S? ?', r r !lam; ,'- ? ?•? ? ? ? ' ` ? .\ ? J ? ?(,?.?? '? I I ? t' ? PU$Hh`-- ,:?
i,l
PFl1lA A I ? I PI MIAh J'
PEMICh
La ke-
%
77
'Is
• /- `1) ,.: 1. ?-.•.'` .?\ 11 :? , ?\- ? ?i-
i PFOIA
prm
PFC
V /I I PFOIC
PFO
``•o PUB \? PUgHh / "? kBHh . \
PUBHh pUBHh-
1
PFOIA
MIA E
PFOIC h
?PEMIC
PEMIA
00 '? ! PEMIA
ti. R do PSS1A
- -, ?t PSSIFh PSSIA v PEM?F 01
PEMIA
--•PFOIA
PUBNh1\ PFOIA PF1L
PUBS
PFOIA p a \ PUB"In
FUB"h Q:
\ t- ,
A
--pF T
?EMIA .
PFOIA
PFOIA PEMIC
Psslc NWI MAP.
P?gNh
PFOU1 PEMiC # - IA
e[ul?'! Pl r . V f'_oLUT r\_
. Y N yY'Jti ! f . x S ' $ *J; .L f t .?k?'T I y' ; t i? ' _?
r e:: k t^
w? l? f
?? t ?` WkD ?? ,? d y ? ,
,A" CeB2
CeB2 O H
,.MeB
364.?a
E16 ?x
+ ;..: ? `,•b? 6. q+'' plt e ? WSi?tk bra
362x, eD2 DaB
4. ? Y q. e
1 r I rB "All
MeB
C\/ Cep 2
B2 MeD
O CeB2 MeB I rB
? 13 w
rA
ru ?.
W,
MeD MOB
-t M i r,
17-
CeB2
}
SITE I rB
i
Mo B
CeD2
MeB
CeB2 IrA ?,.
DaB
MeB IrA
-6diY1?° a':..
NRCS. SOIL SURVEY '
6 ' \ 1
% ? ? //? / ?•- ?- ? __"`` ,jc\-_?____ ------------ -?/ ??/ 659
tpO +111
9T W6ILAND F-Q.022 ACRE \- ---? \ 6
/ ? 6 i \
! I 1 - 640
WETLAND D_ &# E ` ??? ??\ \1 \
rolb
t) bat E ro
49TH ACREj ??` \\ \ \
\ M? °sn. \ \\\ \_
\ \\ \ \ \\ - _. .
way our"
1 j 6b? 6 ~ ` `? \
+ ? POMI 0. AC E WETLAND A B 8686 ACR
1\ SE00H
r
?le 1 + Jam/ ?\ 6?9
SE00"
bill
-"? .` ^ WETLAND C 0., 185 ACRFl
5 /? + ! \
N\
` \ \ JINT-EAKRIFTEMT-,TRIBLITARY`+900 L C-ll W OYACRF?
_ 610 ,
-f• +? ? ?-_-.? . • ' -. •1 ? bp`i' ? \
WEY'LANDS 1.007-Ac RES
•6\p'L \ '` •????{• +
s PONb 10.24 ACRES f `. ' • ??...
INT. TRdIjuTAkV. 0:06 AG4S T14A1? DELI. A ION
,/ + •,. I ...;? .11/_1. ?`` •
TOTAL 1.307 ACRES 1 l0t7
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1997 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2?a 144 AL-1 v Date: f to,
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: State: ?G
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potdi tial Problem Area? Yes FNo Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
1. ,U1?G/ f _ ? y
2. d _L ? 10.
3. c/ w T 11.
12.
13.
r C _? 4 r? 14.
?
7. ?- 15.
-
s.__C/?Ic.t'ir' 412;?rtl col- FAC- 1s.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-), t(??
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inu dated
_ Other rated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
rift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-
Field Observations: _
?"Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary dicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (n.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
ter-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data

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

WTI, 1995 -196-
SOILS
Map Unit Name - / t
-
/
(Series and Phase): ?i/y? lay
) Drainage Class:
LOL
'
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Cinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Controst Structure, etc.
0 &" A /0 z o
Yls
/o
z
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 _ Listed an Local Hydric Soils List
-king Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Ye No (Circle)
e No
No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedandl Ye No
Remarks:
-197- WTI, 1995
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:- ?U Date: q
Applicant/Owner: Q ( County:
Investigator: 4_,?,., State: i((L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 0 Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:

(If needed, explain on reverse.) _
V. firms &.0, m/" ? mar/
VEGETATION Gc??/4? s ,acs
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
142hcl/d Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
2. e rn uC lr?' e n Cal _ ?_ 10 n z..- , A'G 7- _F?4cty

4.?

14.
7 do r?J niC t?/r?iin/' ..??__? ??G- 15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC OJ
(excluding FAC-). t? V
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs In ndated
_ Other turated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available :14
ater..Marks
?
::_: ft Lines
"tediment Deposits
Field Observations: _,eC(rainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary
dicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (n.) -9x1dized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
r,
De
th t
S
il
d S
-/ _ FAC-Nautral Test
p
o
aturate
o
:
1 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

VVTI, 1995 - 196 -
SOILS
Map Unit Name / /
206f/7 ?fia/.i
(Seri es and Phase): /CST/vim Orainage Class:
i j
Field Observation
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes AT.r)
o
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Martle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Conrrest Structure, etc.

Z = Pi _/b, `O `X- 0 Y IV- (v n ?i'C? ono
t
Hydric Soil Indicators:
cretions
/`6'o
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedan n
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_ Aquie Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
R cing Conditions
_ _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
ieyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

e,-K l,- ea„ (y ?J
WETLAND DEi RMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? CDP No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® No
Hydric Sails Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No
Remarks:
-197- WTI, 1995
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
-i? ??p?c? ?.cv? -w?-K?r? Qrea.. ?.. • vuooc?/?c-?C_ cc?Qc?,.?..?- ? t;?c-f??-?C
VFG? ATION .
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator

Irva-er -
2. ? ?JrYt 10.

4. ? K/ 12.
5. 0 n GCJ
_?
? 13.
?
, 14.
7 Gam- 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). V
Remarks:
L_
- . I
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: On.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
If _ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L
I.
Project/Site: - ?' Date:
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 0 No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
WTI, 1995 .196-
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class.:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): CJCl Confirm Mapped Type? es o
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

..?a `?L=mar/ '
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 _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrephytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
i No (Circle)
es
Yes N Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand?
(Circle)
Yes (to
Remarks:
proved
.197- WTI, 1996

Fourth Version
WETLAND RAT M3 WORKSHEET
Project name 14 k i Nearest road
County ?yl,?,?1e/a•bv? -Wetland area • acres Wetland width 20 feet
Name of evaluator Lch 2?.,dhw Date /DA/Ur
?r?''?
Wetland location Adjacent 'land use
:....;.:, .., "". , {within 1l2 mile 'upstream, upslope, ,".
? on Fond or lake "or, "radius}
? on perennial stream
foreste'd/natural veget tiori
?
? on "itntermittaht stream
' .
? agriculture; urban/suburban
interstream divide
? `thin
other - r ? impervious surface d
'" vegetation
Dominant
-`
Lem ?6
Soil series

=? predominantly "".organic - humus,
..muck or, eat
Q edominantly mineral - non-sandy,

'
? predominantly, sandy Flooding and wetness
? semipermanently to permanently
"
" flooded or inundated "
-factors
Hydratthc ? s sonally =floodeld or, inundated
? steep topography
y
intermittantly ."flooded or temporary
? ditched"" or chann6zed su face water,_,_
Q ota[ wetland"vsridth>7OQ"feet ? no evidence oflooding or<surface
. ,
•:i//!f!/f/!!!/l/!/!/f/!!!//.'!/l!!!!l!l!!!/!///!///!/!///!//.. .:'!/!f//!! water "
!!!/!!//!:l:l//!///////l!!!/l:/!/!/"!/.1l.'!/:!///!/!/!/l/. Ff/!l!/!f// .
Wetland type (select one)*
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Pine savar.r.a
2'Peadwater forest ? Freshwater marsh
? Swamp forest ? Bog/fen
? Wet flat ? Ephemeral wetland
? Pocosin ? Carolina Bay
? Bog forest ? Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
weight
Water storage x 4.00 =
\
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
x 4.00 =
d Wetla^d Score
*
Pollutant removal x 5.00 =
j
U
% Wildlife habitat Z x 2.00 =

Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
RP. reatinn/Fducatinn 19 x 1.00
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius ;
!!.!!!!!!!l!!!!!!/!!ll/ll/l!!!!!!!//!l!l!ll,l,ll/,!!!l/;.l.!!!.!;!!.!!.!,!///!!l,l,,;,,,!!!:.l,l,llll;;;:,!!!!ll!!!!;ll/l/!!.ll,:,:!!ll!!///;;
57
. ,+
WETLAND ' ' RATING 'WORKSHEET ' ,ourth Version
,
Project nameB akc,? Nearest road
County ?` k_rk ?*-? rs Wetland area -/g? acres Wetland width 600 eet
Name of evaluatoL??-?^ Z0,dn-e+- Date &b S
'

'.
Wetland Aocation Adjacent :-land use
, (within /,2 , mile: upstream, upslope,
? on pond or lake or radios)
?on perennial stream
_
? forested/natural, vegetation
? on intermittant stream ;
. ? agriculture; urbarrtsuburban%
?withn interstrearrl divide
j? other, {saE coE' 'Atpti 'J0^ ? impervjous surface
Dominant vegetation

Ad =
' ?k
,
,
;,
-
S
ri
Soll
es

? predominantly organic- humus,
muck, or peat
J21"p--redominantlymineral - non-sandy
'
? predominantly sandy', Flooding and wetness
? sernipermanently to permanently
flooded or_inundated
Hydraulics , factors as onally. flooded or, inundated
'
S'_'
stee to o ra b
p p gP
y termittantly flooded or temporary
in
,
F-1 ditched or channelized surface wat>
total 'wetland width >100 feet ? no evidence of flooding or sur?ac I

`J///J//!//f/!//%%!!,!!;/!/; !?!!-l„!'/,!,!/%IfJJ„J/;/„l/!,ll...!lJllO water
„J-!l„e`!!(((!?/J f,!„!,!JlI Jf,J. ,': lI,JJ: J; !, .. liJ;/i!flJl f,/f J, ,,; Jl,'
Wetland type (select one)*
? B??ttomland hardwood forest ? Pine savanna
?'F?ieadwater forest ? Freshwater marsh
? Swamp forest 8g/fen
? Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
? Pocosin ? Carolina Bav
? Bog forest ? Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
weight
R
Water storage y
x 4.00 =
+ >`

Wetla^d Score
G , Bank/Shoreline stabilization O x 4.00 =

Pollutant removal *
x 5.00 = /
Wildlife habitat Z x 2.00 =
Aquatic life value 2 x 4.00 =
Recreation/Education 0 x 1.00 =
??~] * Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% non
,
point disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius

57
? Swamp forest
? Wet flat
? Pocosin
? Bog forest
? Bog/fen
? Ephemeral wetland
? Carolina Bay
? Other

marshes or stream channels
*The rating svstem cannot be applied to salt or brac::is_,
ht
wei
n
U? Water storage x c
4.00
Wetland Score
Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 =
Pollutant removal x 5.00
Wildlife habitat 7i x 2.00 =
Aquatic life value - x 4.00 =
Recreation/Education x 1.00 =
?5 * Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% ncnpeint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, cr radius
57
m
O
q
m
z
a
r
'o
r
D
f7
O
c
z
v
V
D n
Z
D O
Z
v
C r
D
a o
n N
M
O
Z
m ?
o Z
t
O
m 'W
_D
Z ?
o D
n
N! ?
m
rA
0
x
m
CO)
w
o?
oD
r
r
m
T
r
Z
3
c
r
moo-`
• D o -~
V
/' I `y? ?? ?I ? s• "\ ? I? 1' ? :3 l'_ I ? 1"?"'??' _l _ r' ' F^•?- ? '? ' _I l
,; I gs? ti .
CD 1
00

J
?J b / i`
•?` Y` ? , w ?? I ? /
o Lea
~?' I i ? %I I
M CD ? i

z
a
_
Cl o --
N x
°° ? ` C) l l
Cn u
Q =
m l
2 ?
m a z
??+
m C)
>e?
?O
b
v
? z
.D Ar

yo6
vg?
?.
Jv17___ Iu6
/ qo _ ?. 40
Jz
N's
POTENTIAL MULCHED PLAYGROUND LOCATION
- 64 ±0.10 ACRE
4T 0
IMPACTS TO POND 0.24 AC.
+ / ?,) \ \ 330, \ \
1" GG
? ' p • 0 ? POND
Oxf to
Col.
IMPACTS TO WETLANDS 0.421 ACRES
IMPACTS TO CHANNELS ±0.02 ACRESr I \ 0
N 'WETLAND AREA & INT. TRIB. PRESERVED
--fi4iov
00
rbo
19
1bNT
V?l
_610-
+
9 \ 609 0 t \ \
TOTAL IMPACTS - 0.681 ACRES
+6 bog. ?\\ ' ??_ ti
1
IMPACTS FROM MULCH LAYGROUND 0.10 A?RES
1 WETLAND PERMITTING PLAN
1"=100' . ` \
J
1?J-1?-1G9E 1::5289 DPC GO POWER DEL-/JtDL-I i?•+ _.? --
DESKS
Dukef.?lne+errng&Sazvices
400 south Tryon Suta (704)3R2-'M1 omce
WC758 (704) 382,9198 Fm c
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
October 10. 1996
Russell Ranson, III
Crosland Land Co.
141 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
RE: Blakeney-Heath Property
Dear Mr. Ranson:
The Blakeney-Heath Property, an approximately 65 acre tract in southern Mecklenburg
County. NC, was surveyed for endangered species on two site visits in July and August,
1996. The property is located on Blakeney Heath Road, approximately three-.fourths of a
mile south of Providence Road West. The northern edge of the property is bound by
Blakeney Heath Road. The southern edge of the property is bound by farm land belonging
to Robert Dickey Ross. The property is 1"ely farmed yr gr4xed by cattle; wooded areas
exist on some areas of the property, Some field borders and drainages are not farmed or
wrazed. The entire site and adjacent property boundaries were surveyed for protected
species, especially Schweinitz's sunflower (H 1i n h aehwc ni iii). No Federal
endangered, threatened or former candidate species were found.
Please call me at 382-7731 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert Siler
Manager
Emironmental Analysis & Facility Siting
cc: DES Records Center (1622-00-1901.00)
CS Records Center
TOTi L P. 01
e o
FF=

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resdl%t
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 7. 1996
Mr. Russell Ranson, III
Crosland Land Company
141 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Dear Mr. Ranson:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
As you requested August 5, 1 am confirming that the James A. Blakeney House
located on Blakeney-Heath Road (on the southwest side of SR 3629, .6 miles
south of junction with SR 3626) is not listed in the National Register of Historic
Places.
The State of North Carolina does not conduct a separate historic property
designation program. Our records indicate that the property is locally designated
by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Historic Landmark Commission.
Please let me know if I can provide you with further information.
Sincerely,
Linda Harris Edmisten
National Register Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3?V
ob
AUG 1 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Co?;?niswfl
August 13, 1996
Russell Ranson
Crosland Land Company
141 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, N.C. 28209
Dear Mr. Ranson:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the James Blakeney
Farmstead. The original is being sent to the Crosland Land Company, who has the responsibility
of submitting the certificate when permits are required. Please be notified that the enclosed
Certificate of Appropriateness is only for the scope of work submitted for approval. Any other
work will have to be approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission through the issuance of
additional certificates of appropriateness.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
?? )e, ?*?
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Consulting Director
encl.
cc: Van T. Hill, HLC Chairman
Lindsay Daniel, Design Review Chairman
Kam Merrell, Building Standards Department
2100 RANDOLPH ROAD • CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28207 • [phone] • FAX[phone]
10
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 96-15 DATE ISSUED: 8/13/96
ISSUED TO: Crosland Land Company
NAME OF LANDMARK: James A. Blakeney Farmstead
ADDRESS OF LANDMARK: Blakeney Heath Road
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 229-051-14
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 141 Scaleybark Road, Charlotte, N.C. 28209
APPLICANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
The Historic Landmarks Commission has reviewed the proposed activity and has
found the following aspects to be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
and, therefore, has found them to be appropriate:
The proposed development of a portion of the James A. Blakeney Farm, Blakeney
Heath Road, more specifically being the 35.842 acres in Mecklenburg County Tax
Parcel No. 229-051-14 as of July 17, 1996, be approved as depicted and described in
plans and specifications prepared for Crosland Land Company by Turnbull Design
Group, P.A. (Project #9608, Sketch Plan "G", August 8, 1996) but with the
following additional stipulations:
1. The applicant shall place multiple
to assuge a visual screen throughout
property lines of lots 145 and 146 sufficient
the year between the aforesaid lots and Blakeney Heath Road.
2. The applicant shall submit for approval to the Historic Landmarks Commission
at its meeting on September 18, 1996, plan guidelines and exterior materials for
all houses situated all or in part on Tax BlaParcel No. 229-051-14 and which shall
kene Heath Rod Al such houses
front on the meadow which shall border y
shall have wood siding, shall have 8' porches,
feasible distance from garages, and
front
shall have garages recessed to the maximum
elevation of the house. These houses shall in general terms constitute the design
shall Parcel No. 229-051-
vocabulary for all houses which shall be constructed
13 eath
13 and which shall front on the mead
Road.
3. The entrance sign and monument for the development shall be rural in feel and
nature, constructed of indigenous stone, and shall be no larger or higher than
the entrance sign and monument for Ellington Park.
4. The Historic Landmarks Commission shall assist Crosland Land Company in
attempting to obtain a release from the standard curb and gutter and sidewalk
regulations of the subdevelopment ordinance, so that no curbs, gutters or
sidewalks may be constructed along Blakeney Heath Road nor along the
entrance road into the proposed development east of Lot 1.
5. Deed covenants shall be instituted stipulating that no development, except
necessary infrastructure, shall occur forward from the front facades of the
houses on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 64, 65, and 66 and extending to edge of the public
right-of-way of Blakeney Heath Road, and stipulating that the entire front
meadow, including that portion on Tax Parcel Number 229-051-13, shall remain
pastoral in feel and appearance.
6. The designation of all of the land in Tax Parcel Number 229-051-14 as a historic
landmark shall be removed, except for that portion of Tax Parcel Number 229-
051-14 forward from and including the front facades of the houses which are
entirely or partly within said Tax Parcel and which face the front meadow, and
extending to the edge of the public right-of-way of Blakeney Heath Road.
This Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for a period of six (6) months from the
date of issuance. Failure to procure a building or demolition permit with a six-
month period will be considered as a failure to comply with this Certificate, and the
Certificate will become invalid. If a building or demolition permit is not required,
the approved activity must be completed within a six-month period from the date of
issuance. This Certificate can be renewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission
upon written request for the applicant with a valid reason for failure to comply
Certificate responsibility of
with the six-month deadline. This Certificate district to obtain the
of the owner of a structure in a local historic
ApproRrriateness from the Charlotte Historic District Commission.
11 -
By:

HLC Consulting Director
And: /?/(76V ? 1 wV
Fort a Charlotte-Mecklenburg
8/94
n
Design Review Chairman
Landmarks Commission
NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES
Archaeologists • Historians • Architectural Historians
August 12,1996
Mr. Russell Ranson, III
Crosland Land Company
141 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Dear Mr. Ranson:
On August 10 and 11, 1996 New South Associates, Inc. conducted an
archaeological survey of a 35.842 acre tract of land adjacent to Blakeney
Heath Road in Mecklenburg County, Tax ID# 229-051-1-14. The purpose
of this work was to determine whether significant (for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places) archaeological sites exist on the
parcel. This work was undertaken in accordance with the requirements
of a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Historic Landmarks Commission to Mr. Russell Ranson, III of Crosland
Land Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.
The entire 35.842 acre parcel (the study area) was systematically assessed
for archaeological sites. The methods used to assess the study area
included a combination of surface inspection across the tract in areas
where ground surface visibility was available and subsurface shovel
tests. In those areas where ground surface visibility was not available,
and where deemed necessary by the Principal Investigator, shovel tests
(30 centimeters square) were dug at 30 meter (100 feet) intervals. These
shovel tests were dug to subsoil and the fill was screened through 25
inch hardware cloth for artifacts (prehistoric and historic). The soil
profiles and floors of all subsurface units were inspected for the
presence of archaeological features (i.e. hearths, trash pits, burials, house
floors, etc.) and/or culturally derived stratigraphy (i.e. madden deposits).
All shovel tests were backfilled upon completion. Sixty shovel tests
were dug across the study area. The balance of the area contained
standing water (and/or low and wet areas), surface visibility, steep
slopes L> 15% and/or eroded and Bullied areas. Shovel tests were not
dug in these areas. The results of this survey will be discussed below.
6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 • [phone] Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 806, Inno, South Carolina 29063 • Voice/Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 481, Mebane, North Carolina 27302 • Voice/Fax [phone]
http://www.niindspring.conl/-wheaton[NSA.htnit
cultural resources survey
prehistoric & historic archaeology
hiswnc resrtrdt • preservation planning
archit tiural himorv • udnn suidics
The physical condition of the study area is typical of land used over a long period of time for
agricultural purposes. The entire tract exhibits a generally eroded and disturbed landscape.
This disturbance results from years of cultivation and the effects of cattle. The area contains a
series of artificial terraces which extend from the most recently plowed field adjacent to
Blakeney Heath Road (in the northern portion of the study area) southward down slope
toward a small stream near the southern boundary of the property. These terraces were
constructed for agricultural purposes to reduce the effects of erosion on cultivated side slopes.
The most recently plowed area accounts for approximately 10 percent of the study area As
stated above, this area is located in the extreme northern area of the tract adjacent to Blakeney
Heath Road and extends southward for approximately 700 to 800 feet. Shovel tests in this area
reveal strong brown loamy clay to 19 centimeters below surface over red clay (a very eroded
landscape). No cultural materials were recovered in shovel tests in this area and no
archaeological sites were recorded.
Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the area is wooded (mixed hardwoods and conifers, to
include cedar). Wooded areas (patches) are located across the tract south of the recently
cultivated area. Most of the surface visibility was contained in these wooded patches.
Visibility resulted from erosion, tree falls, and most frequently from the actions of cattle.
Surface visibility was supplemented with shovel tests to assess the wooded areas. The
wooded area along the west central portion of the tract contains a two centimeter humic mat
over red sandy clay with a high percentage of naturally exfoliated quartz as part of the soil
matrix This area is also very eroded.
The central portion of the tract is dominated by a small pond (approximately one third of an
acre in area). The general area surrounding this body of water is low (and was very damp at
the time of the survey). Several ditches previously cut by the farmer to drain the area bear
witness to the level of saturation in this area. These ditches provide drainage toward the
pond and to a natural feeder stream which vents southeast into the larger stream near the
southern border of the property. Shovel tests in this area reveal heavily mottled sand and
silts to 19 centimeters below surface over heavily mottled silty clays. The area surrounding
the pond has been heavily impacted by the actions of cattle. Surface visibility was available in
a large portion of this area.
The remaining 50 to 60 percent of the area is composed of pasture and presently supports a
herd of 25 to 35 mixed breed beef cattle. This herd has adversely impacted the entire tract,
minus the recently cultivated 10 percent of the area to the extreme north. Numerous trails
cross the landscape and provide surface visibility. In addition, areas where the cattle
frequently congregate (this includes wooded areas and areas adjacent to water) are bare of
ground cover and generally very disturbed. Most of the shovel tests are located in the pasture
area.
Three archaeological sites were recorded as a result of this survey. North Carolina state site
forms have, at present, not been completed. As a result, the temporary site numbers will be
used in this discussion. Each site will be discussed separately below.
NSA Site # 1
NSA site #1 is located in the extreme southwestern comer of the property on the southern
end of a small ridgetoe, its eastern slope and on a low terraced area overlooking a small, low
order stream (See Figure 1). The northwestern portion of the site is located in a wooded area,
while the central and southeastern portions are located in pasture. The long axis of the site
extends from the southwest corner 180 meters (600 feet) southeast and parallel to the course of
the stream. The short axis of the site extends from 90 meters (300 feet) along the west
boundary of the study area within a wooded area to 30 meters (100 feet) northeast of the
southern boundary of the property perpendicular to the course of the stream.
NSA #1 was assessed with sixteen 30 x 30 centimeter shovel tests. A representative soil
profile in the pasture area of the site includes 10YR 4/3, brown to dark brown silty loam to 14
centimeters below ground surface; over l OYR 4/4, dark yellowish brown clayey silt to 32
centimeters; over IOYR 4/6, dark yellowish brown sandy clay continuing at 36 centimeters
below surface. Water was encountered at 54 centimeters below ground surface. Prehistoric
artifacts were recovered up to 20 centimeters below surface. No evidence of features or
culturally derived stratigraphy was observed in any shovel test in the pasture portion of the
site.
A representative soil profile in the wooded area includes 10YR 3/3, dark brown silty loam to
five centimeters below surface; over 75YR 4/6, brown to dark brown clayey sandy silt to 18
centimeters; over 5YR 4 / 6, yellowish red sandy clay continuing at 27 centimeters below
surface. Prehistoric artifacts were recovered between 5 to 18 centimeters below surface. No
evidence of features or culturally derived stratigraphy was observed in any shovel test in the
wooded portion of the site.
Prehistoric artifacts include felsic and quartz lithics and prehistoric ceramics. The lithics
consist mainly of lithic reduction debris with one quartz production failure and one quartz
core. These artifacts represent activities associated with tool production and maintenance. A
single diagnostic projectile point was found on the terrace portion of the site. This point is a
Mississippian (Pee Dee) pentagonal and dates circa 1,000 AD (Coe 1995201). Some heavily
weathered, but nondiagnositc, lithic debris may indicate an earlier Archaic Stage presence at
the site (circa 8,500 to 1,500 B.Q.
Two specific styles of ceramics are present. These include Yadkin wares (simple stamped and
eroded surface treatments) which date to the late Middle Woodland period, from 300 H.C. to
500 AD. The second distinct style is probably contemporaneous with the Mississippian
projectile point. These artifacts suggest activities associated with food processing and/or
storage.
NSA #1 represents a small, multiple activity site with at least two distinct occupations related
to the Woodland (Yadkin) and Mississippian periods. A third possible occupation related to
the Archaic is probable, but not confirmed due to the lack of temporal diagnostic artifacts.
Shovel tests did not reveal any evidence of intact features or culturally derived stratigraphy.
While most archaeological sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of
Historic Places under criterion "D;" the ability to provide information 'important in
prehistory and history,' this criterion is rather open-ended and ill-defined. The following
attribute evaluations suggested by Glassow (1971) can be made of NSA #1 in an effort to
determine site eligibility potential:
(1) Degree of Integrity. Does the site contain intact remains, allowing for component
(cultural and functional) separation and analysis, or is it highly mixed and disturbed? None
of the shovel tests dug at NSA #1 revealed any evidence of intact features. In addition
artifacts from the different temporal periods appeared to be mixed with no stratigraphic
separation of components. It is therefore concluded that the site lacks integrity.
(2) Degree of Preservation. Does the site contain preserved cultural deposits, features, floral
materials, faunal remains, or human skeletal remains suited to in-depth research and/or
absolute dating? Again, none of the shovel tests dug at NSA #1 revealed any evidence of
intact features. In addition, no evidence of floral (charred wood seeds etc.), faunal (animal
bone, teeth, shell, etc), or human skeletal remains was observed in any of the shovel tests.
The site does not appear, based on the evidence, to contain preservation.
(3) Uniqueness. Is the information contained in the site redundant to that available from
other, similar sites, or do such remains provide a unique or insightful perspective on
research concerns of regional importance? While this site is interesting in terms of the
location, the lack of integrity and preservation is not unlike numerous sites found in similar
settings. Further work at the site would most definitely produce additional material objects,
but would probably not produce any additional information beyond the basic data already
collected (in terms of site function and activity sets). It is concluded that the site is not
unique.
(4) relevance to Current and Future Research. In consideration of current research themes
and directions, could the excavation of the site fulfill basic research needs? Would
preservation of the site provide valuable data for future studies? While this aspect is partially
the sum of aspects listed above, it also recognizes that a site may be able to contribute to
ongoing research regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness. NSA #1 is of interest
in terms of prehistoric settlement and landuse patterns; however, additional work at the site
would probably produce data redundant to that already collected by the present survey. It is
concluded that the level of data already collected will serve to augment current research
regarding these issues. Without evidence for intact remains it is doubtful that preservation
of the site would provide valuable data for future studies.
Based on the evidence, it is concluded that NSA #1 is not eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No further work is recommended for this site.
NSA Site # 2
NSA site #2 is located east of NSA #1 in the south central portion of the property on a low
terraced area overlooking the confluence of the small feeder stream which drains the central
portion of the property and the a small, low order stream discussed for NSA #1 (See Figure 1).
The site is located in a pasture near what appears to be a natural spring. The long axis of the
site extends on a southwest to northeast axis 60 meters (200 feet) across the terrace. The short
axis of the site extends 30 meters (100 feet) perpendicular to the confluence area.
NSA #2 was assessed with six 30 x 30 centimeter shovel tests. A representative soil profile of
the site includes l OYR 4/Z dark grayish brown clayey loam to one centimeters below ground
surface; over 75YR 4/6, strong brown loamy clay to 16 centimeters; over IOYR 4/4, dark
yellowish brown clayey sand with pebbles to 24 centimeters; over 10YR 5/6, yellowish brown
dense clay continuing at 58 centimeters below surface. Prehistoric artifacts mixed with
historic artifacts were recovered from one to 27 centimeters below surface. No evidence of
features or culturally derived stratigraphy was observed in any shovel test within the site.
Prehistoric artifacts include felsic and quartz Ethics and prehistoric ceramics. The Ethics
consist mainly of lithic reduction debris. These artifacts represent activities associated with
tool production and maintenance. The ceramics are fine textured, thin sherds with
burnished interiors. These wares are probably associated with a Mississippian occupation.
These artifacts suggest activities associated with food processing and / or storage.
The historic artifacts include cut nails, historic ceramics and one rivet. Their is no evidence
of a historic structure. The artifacts probably result from historic fence lines and discard.
These artifacts have been mixed with the prehistoric remains as a result of plowing.
NSA #2 represents a small, multiple activity site with an occupation related to the
Mississippian period. Shovel tests did not reveal any evidence of intact features or culturally
derived stratigraphy. This site is disturbed and mixed with historic debris. The following
attribute evaluations suggested by G7assow (1977) can be made of NSA #2 in an effort to
determine site eligibility potential:
(1) De=e of Integrity, Does the site contain intact remains, allowing for component
(cultural and functional) separation and analysis, or is it highly mixed and disturbed? None
of the shovel tests dug at NSA #2 revealed any evidence of intact features. In addition
prehistoric and historic artifacts appear to be mixed with no stratigraphic separation of
components. In several cases the historic artifacts were recovered low within the shovel tests.
It is therefore concluded that the site lacks integrity.
(2) Desiree of Preservation. Does the site contain preserved cultural deposits, features, floral
materials, faunal remains, or human skeletal remains suited to in-depth research and/or
absolute dating? Again, none of the shovel tests dug at NSA #2 revealed any evidence of
intact features. In addition, no evidence of floral (chaired wood seeds etc.), faunal (animal
bone, teeth, shell, etc.), or human skeletal remains was observed in any of the shovel tests.
The site does not appear, based on the evidence, to contain preservation.
(3) Is the information contained in the site redundant to that available from
other, similar sites, or do such remains provide a unique or insightful perspective on
research concerns of regional importance? Much like NSA #1, this site is interesting in terms
of the location The lack of integrity and preservation, however, is not unlike numerous sites
found in similar settings. Further work at the site would most definitely produce additional
material objects, but would probably not produce any additional information beyond the basic
data already collected (in terms of site function and activity sets). It is concluded that the site
is not unique.
(4) Relevance to Current and Future Research. In consideration of current research themes
and directions, could the excavation of the site fulfill basic research needs? Would
preservation of the site provide valuable data for future studies? While this aspect is partially
the sum of aspects listed above, it also recognizes that a site may be able to contribute to
ongoing research regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness. NSA #2 is of interest
in terms of prehistoric settlement and landuse patterns; however, additional work at the site
would probably produce data redundant to that already collected by the present survey. It is
concluded that the level of data already collected will serve to augment current research
regarding these issues. Without evidence for intact remains it is doubtful that preservation
of the site would provide valuable data for future studies.
Based on the evidence, it is concluded that NSA #2 is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
No further work is recommended for this site.
NSA Site # 3
NSA Site #3 is an isolated prehistoric quartz biface found on the ground surface along a ridge
slope in the central portion of the tract (See Figure 1). This artifact may be an exhausted core
and may have been used as a wedge or some other sort of tool This isolated artifact is out of
context on the ground surface. A minimum of 60 percent visibility was available in the area
Further inspection failed to reveal any additional artifacts. Based on the evidence, it is
concluded that NSA Site #3 is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. No further work is
recommended for this isolated find.
A State of North Carolina site form will be completed for each site recorded by this survey.
Permanent site numbers will be registered at the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh,
North Carolina. Arrangements for permanent curation of the artifacts will be made with the
Schiele Museum in Gastonia, North Carolina.
In summary, no evidence of significant archaeological sites was observed as a result of this
survey. None of the three sites recorded are recommended as eligible to the NRHP. No
evidence was observed to support the existence of extant, historical archaeological remains
associated with the James A Blakeney Farmstead other than the eroded landscape itself.
Based on these observations, it is concluded that the proposed undertaking will not adversely
impact any significant archaeological resources. It is therefore recommended that Crosland
i' ' "
Land Development Company be allowed to proceed with the proposed undettaldng.
If you have any questions regarding the information given above or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-563-4708. Thank you for your
consideration of cultural resources as a part of your project.
Sincerely yours,
NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z? 'JCr C - /?
Lawrence E. Abbott, Jr.
Archaeologist
References Cited
Coe, J. L
1995 Town Qwek A Nave American Legacy. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Glassow, M. A
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. Amen'can
An&gwJ v 42(3).
ez L; -, \
71
630
; ` 650
of ?
cp
. II 6 VN ll 6
?? - n ` I I II r--'
630
v-590
II N
Ivi
6??
At)
% o 600
1 1
J ^? /
® //
\t'l? 1313 II• ( P c i bpi I 3 a(
,
j. t
?? ? I l 35? \ i ? \
1) ((( I j s
a m .e •1316 09
? 4
0
516 RCA WBA NE)
4853 /V NE 518 ' 47130" y 1 On r(
SCALE 1:24000 n,f 1520
0
/
1000 0 1000 1 MILE
2000 3000 0000
5000 6000 7000 FEET
a 5 0
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
N C ?)
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS QUADRANGLE LOCATION
FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Revisions shown in purple and wn vile 1 :_ ___