20021823 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20011213

Charlotte-Mecklenbnrg
Charlotte-Mecklenburg STORM Storm Water Services WATER
Services
Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration
Project - Phase ,I Wellingford Street Regional
Water Quality Basin
November 2001
Preliminary Design
? Technical
Memorandum
L
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
December 13, 2001
J
UN?Nbw?
13
Mr. Todd St. John
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Subject: MCSWS Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project - Phase I
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
Dear Mr. St. John:
As we discussed on the telephone yesterday, Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
(MCSWS) proposes to construct the first project in the Little Sugar Creek Environmental
Restoration Program. The goals of the Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
(Hidden Valley Ecological Garden) project are to improve degraded water quality in Little
Sugar Creek, provide flood storage capacity, create a functional wetland system, improve the
function and quality of the stream, and improve wildlife and stream habitat.
Enclosed please find a copy of the Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum that describes
the background for the project and presents three alternatives for implementation of the
project. Section 3.5 (page 18) describes the components of each alternative, and Figures 2, 3,
and 4 at the back of the section present the concept plans for each alternative. Also enclosed
is a copy of the project's Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which will be implemented by the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP).
One of the requirements of the Clean Water Management Trust FLmd grant application
process is to conduct a pre-application meeting to discuss aspects of the permitting process
for the project. We would like to set up a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss the
proposed project alternatives. Please call me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
6cvvu?
Kelly R. Boone
Camp Dresser & McKee
cc: John Domey, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Pete Colwell, Water Quality Section, Mooresville Regional Office
consulting • engineering • construction • operations
4011"
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project
June 2001
Background
The Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project is located in the
headwaters of Little Sugar Creek in Northeast Charlotte. The segment of Little Sugar Creek
addressed by this project runs from North Tryon Street to Springview Road and contains a
tributary which flows under Wellingford Street.
The purpose of this Water Quality Monitoring Plan is to acquire the chemical, physical and
biological data necessary to accurately assess the short and long term effectiveness of the project
at improving the general water quality conditions in Little Sugar Creek and in fulfilling the
specific water quality goals defined in the project application. These goals include reducing
through-flow pollutants from upstream contributory areas as follows: reduce phosphorus by 70%;
reduce total suspended solids by 80%; reduce fecal coliform bacteria by 60%.
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan will be implemented by the Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP).
Monitoring Sites
Three Benthic Macro] nvertebrate Bioassessment sites will be monitored. One site is located at
the lower end of the project (just above the culvert north of North Tryon Street). A second site is
located upstream of the project (above Springview Road) and will serve as a "control" for the
project. A third site is located on the Wellingford Street tributary (at Wellingford Street) (see
Figure 1). Fish Bioassessment will be conducted at the North Tryon Street and Springview Road
sites. The fish community will reflect, along with the benthic macroin vertebrates, the overall
improvements in instream habitat quality resulting from this project.
Ambient Water Quality monitoring will be conducted at all benthic macroi n vertebrate
bioassessment sites. A fourth ambient water quality monitoring site will be located on the
Wellingford Street tributary upstream of the project (at Mellow Drive).
Storm Water monitoring will be conducted at the influent and effluent points of each BMP
structure.
Biological Monitoring
The benthic macroin vertebrate sampling methods to be used are adapted from those developed
by NCDEHNR (Lenat 1988, NCDEHNR 1997) and described in the Mecklenburg County
00,
Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project June 2001
Stream Bioassessment Operating Procedures (MCDEP 2000). These sampling strategies
involve qualitative sampling of benthic macroi n vertebrates and are intended for use only in
shallow, freshwater streams, usually less than 1.5 meters deep. Water quality status is
determined by Taxa Richness of entire benthic community and of the three sensitive groups,
Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera. The STANDARD QUALITATIVE METHOD
collection technique consists of 2 kick net samples, 3 sweep-net samples, 1 leaf-pack sample, 2
rock and/or log wash samples, 1 sand sample and visual collections. Benthic macroin vertebrates
will be sorted in the field using forceps and white trays, and preserved in glass vials containing
95% ethanol. The benthic macroinvertebrates collected will be identified to the lowest practical
taxonomic level.
The fish sampling methods to be used are adapted from those developed by NCDEHNR for use
with the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) (NCDEHNR 1997) and described in
the Mecklenburg County Stream Bioassessment Operating Procedures (MCDEP 2000). This
quantitative method is intended for use in wadeable streams that can be waded safely while
wearing a backpack electroshocker to the extent of allowing the sampler to reach all areas of the
stream with an electroshocking probe. At each sampling site, an area 150 to 200 meters long will
be selected that contains all available habitats typical of the stream, including pools and riffles.
The NCIBI assesses a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of the
fish community (NCDEHNR 1997). The score derived from the NCIBI is a measure of the
ecological health of a stream and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The
NCIBI includes information on species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish
condition and fish abundance calculated in 12 metrics as described by NCDEHNR (1997).
Water Chemistry
Ambient Water Chemistry samples consists of water samples taken during non-rain influenced
conditions (MCDEP 1999). Stream velocity and discharge measurements will be taken at each
site using a Price Type Mini Current Meter. Field measurements of stream conductivity,
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and temperature, will be conducted at the time of the sampling using
a Y.S.I. Multi Probe.
The water quality index (WQI), developed by Brown et al. (1970) and improved by Deininger
(1979) for the National Sanitation Foundation, will be generated from water samples taken at
each sample site. The WQI index includes the following nine parameters: Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, pH, Temperature, Total Nitrate, Total
Phosphorus, Total Solids and Turbidity. In addition to the nine WQI parameters, each sample
will also be analyzed for alkalinity, Total Suspended Solids, Total Dissolved Solids, Ammonia
(NH3), Total Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl, and metals (Copper, Iron, Manganese, Zinc and 12 toxic
metals).
2
0000,
Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project June 2001
The Storm Water samples will be collected from the influent and effluent points for each BMP
during the "first flush" portion of a storm event and analyzed for Total Nitrogen, Total
Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids and Fecal Coliform Bacteria.
Stream Habitat Assessment
At each site (bioassessment and water chemistry), a Stream Habitat Assessment will be
conducted using the Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol (MHAP) developed by CH2M
HILL (2000). The MHAP evaluates the quality of the in stream habitat and the quality of the
riparian zone.
Monitoring Schedule
The project will be monitored over a five year period. The annual Benthic Macroi n vertebrate
monitoring will be conducted during the Summer of 2001 (year 1, pre-construction), 2003 (year
3), 2004 (year 4) and 2005 (year 5). Fish will be monitored prior to construction and in year 5.
Ambient Water Chemistry monitoring will be conducted quarterly for 3 years beginning in July
2001. Storm Water BMP monitoring will be conducted quarterly for 2 years beginning
immediately upon completion of the construction phase of the project. Table 1 summarizes the
sampling schedule for The Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project.
Table d. The Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project Sampling
Schedule (see Figure 1)
Site Benthic Macro (a) Fish (a) Ambient WQ (b) Storm Water (b, c)
N. Tryon St. Year 1, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 5 Year 1, 2, 3
(site #1)
Springview Rd. Year 1, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 5 Year 1, 2, 3
(site #2)
Wellingford St. Year 1, 3, 4, 5 Year 1, 2, 3
(site #3)
Mellow Dr. Year 1, 2, 3
(site #4)
a. Annual Sampling
b. Quarterly Sampling
c. Monitoring at BMP influent and effluent - year 2,3
3

Little Sugar Creek Upper Basin Environmental Restoration Project June 2001
Literature Cited
Brown, R. M., N. I. McClelland, R. A. Deininger and R. G. Tozer. 1970. A Water Quality Index
-- Do we dare? Water and Sewage Works. 117: 339-343.
CH2M HILL. 2000. Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol. Draft Final Report. Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Deininger, R. A. 1979. A Water Quality Index for rivers. In: III World Congress on Water
Resources - Mexico, 1979. International Water Resources Association. pp. 3542-3551.
Lenat, D. R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method
for benthic macroi n vertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society.
7:222-233.
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. 1999 Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection Sampling Protocol. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. 2000 Mecklenburg County
Stream Bioassessment Operating Procedures. Charlotte, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1997. Standard
operating procedures, biological monitoring. Division of Environmental Management.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
4
CDM
consulting
engineering
construction
' operations
1
CampDDresser & McKee
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 512
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204-2686
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
November 12, 2001
Mr. Andrew Burg, P.E., L.S.
Mecklenburg County Engineering
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Subject: Phase 1 of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative:
Hidden Valley Ecological Garden - Wellingford Street Regional Water
Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum
Dear Andrew:
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) is pleased to submit herewith three copies of the
Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum in accordance with Task 2.4 of the scope of
services for the above referenced project. The memorandum provides a detailed analysis
of three potential improvement alternatives for the project area. For each alternative,
CDM has provided water quality improvement data, an estimated construction cost
estimate, and a design concept illustration. CDM has also provided a detailed base map
identifying key design elements and a property acquisition plan.
The memorandum is organized as follows:
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Urban Retrofit BMPs
1.1.1 Urban Retrofit BMP Site Selection and Planning
1.1.2 Urban Retrofit Design Issues
1.2 Water Quality Characteristics of Urban Runoff
1.2.1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
1.2.2 Nutrients
1.2.3 Metals
1.2.4 Bacteria
Section 2 Water Quality Analysis Development
2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling in HSPF
2.2 Water Quality Modeling in HSPF
Section 3 Water Quality Evaluation Of Alternative Wetland/ Pond Treatment
Designs
3.1 Wet Detention Ponds
3.1.1 Wet Detention Pollutant Removal Mechanisms
3.1.2 Benefits of Wet Detention
3.2 Extended Dry Detention Ponds
3.3 Storm Water Wetlands
3.3.1 Wetland Pollutant Removal Mechanisms
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Andrew Burg, P.E., L.S.
November 12, 2001
Page 2
3.3.1.1 Sedimentation
3.3.1.2 Nitrogen Removal
3.3.1.3 Phosphorus Removal
3.4 BMP Model Removal Efficiencies
3.5 Alternatives Analysis
3.5.1 Alternative 1
3.5.2 Alternative 2
3.5.3 Alternative 3
Section 4 References
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project, and please feel free to
contact me with questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
1. /04?
S. Lance Strawn, P.E.
Project Manager
c: Jeffrey Payne, CDM
Jason Dorn, CDM
Rich Wagner, CDM
File

it

11

Section 1
Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes three potential improvement alternatives
for Phase 1 of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative. An
overview of the design layout, design calculations, and associated modeling is
presented for each alternative. Also included for comparison are the associated
estimated construction costs.
As one reviews this document, it is important to note that the proposed facilities are
not traditional stormwater best management practices (BMPs), but may be classified
as urban "retrofit BMPs." To successfully restore a streams overall aquatic health in
an urban environment such as Mecklenburg County, stormwater "retrofitting" is an
essential element. Goals of the "retrofit" include the following:
¦ Providing a stormwater treatment facility with efficient pollutant removal,
¦ Restoring/ stabilizing degraded streams,
¦ Creating functional wetland systems,
¦ Providing ecological diversity and increasing the range of habitat,
¦ Providing the neighborhood with a safe and attractive facility,
' ¦ Providing significant water quality education potential for the public.
1.1 Urban Retrofit BMPs
The Center for Watershed Protection has explored many of the issues associated with
urban retrofit BMPs and have learned that their design is often more of an art than a
science, and that it requires the ability to be innovative. Stormwater retrofits should
be applied as part of an integrated watershed restoration program. While some
professionals rightfully assert that true watershed restoration is not feasible, the term
is applied here as simply an overall strategy to (at least partially) restore a native
biological community to Upper Little Sugar Creek (ULSC).
1.1.1 Urban Retrofit BMP Site Selection and Planning
' Planning and implementation should be carried out in a watershed context, be
consistent with overall watershed goals, and include public involvement early in the
' process. When considering potential sites, fiscal restraints, pollutant removal
capability, and watershed capture area must all be carefully weighed. Usually,-at
least some kind of practice can be installed in most situations, but too many
' constraints can make a site impractical. The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP)
indicates that, in general, an effective retrofitting strategy must capture at least 50
percent of the watershed and provide a minimum storage volume of approximately 1/2
' inch per impervious acre. Assuming an impervious value of 25 percent, this
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1

L

I?

w
LJ

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
translates to 0.125 inches of storage. Note that in a site subject to space constraints, it
is often desirable to divert larger flows away from the BMP. This option was
considered for the Little Sugar Creek project, but CDM determined that flow
diversion would not be feasible.
1.1.2 Urban Retrofit Design Issues
Normal BMP design usually follows prescribed design criteria such as control of the
2-year storm or sizing for a specified water quality volume. Retrofit design, however,
involves working backwards from a set of existing site constraints to arrive at an
acceptable stormwater control facility. Sometimes this process yields facilities that are
too small or ineffective and therefore not practical for further consideration. CWP
provides an example of one such project in Gaithersburg, Maryland that was recently
proposed as a major stormwater wetland (upstream from an existing road culvert) to
control a 1,000-acre watershed. The only problem was that only 1/20th of an inch of
total storage (.05 inch) was obtainable. This facility would have been a maintenance
nightmare and likely would have done little to remove pollutants or control
downstream channel erosion. The City of Gaithersburg decided not to pursue the
project even though they had already retained a consultant and spent significant time
and money on preliminary design.
Some of the additional key elements to consider during the design of an urban retrofit
BMP follow:
¦ Flow management - Without establishing a stable, predictable hydrologic water
regime that regulates the volume, duration, frequency, and rate of flow, many
strategies may be disappointing failures. For example, erosive velocities through
wetland can damage the plants.
Management of other site constraints - The key to successful retrofit design is to
maximize pollutant removal and channel erosion protection while limiting the
impacts to adjacent infrastructure, residents, or other properties. Designers must
consider issues like avoiding relocations of existing utilities, minimizing existing
wetland and forest impacts, maintaining (or lowering) existing floodplain
elevations, complying with dam safety and dam hazard classification criteria,
avoiding excessive maintenance requirements, and providing adequate
construction and maintenance access to the site.
Permitting - Perhaps the most difficult permitting issues for retrofit projects
involve impacts to wetlands, streams, and floodplain alterations. Many of these
impacts are either unavoidable or necessary to achieve reasonable storage targets.
The designer must ensure that the impacts have been minimized to the greatest
extent practicable and that the benefits are clearly recognizable.
¦ Constructability - Retrofitting often involves unique or unusual situations during
construction such as a large earthwork imbalance. Many urban retrofit projects
t CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2
' Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
' involve deeply incised streams and require significant excavation to reach the low
stream invert. This results in a large amount of cut material but very little fill. This
excavated material must be hauled off the site; and this operation can take months
' to complete, depending on the proximity of the destination, and greatly increase
construction cost.
¦ Maintenance Plans - Always the last element to be discussed, and often the least
practiced component of a stormwater management program, maintenance is
doubly important in retrofit situations. The reasons are that most retrofits are
' undersized -when compared to their new development counterparts - and space is
at a premium in urban areas where many maintenance provisions such as access
roads, stockpiling, or staging areas are either absent or woefully undersized.
' ¦ Maximum water quality storage volume - To maximize water quality storage
volume, the design may include a combination of forebays, permanent pools,
' dynamic pools, and/or shallow marsh areas. Design variations include: wet
extended detention ponds, multiple pond systems, infiltration devices and pocket
wetlands.
1.2 Water Quality Characteristics of Urban Runoff
Urban stormwater runoff is a nonpoint source (NPS) of pollution as opposed to a
' point source such as a discharge from a wastewater treatment plant through a pipe to
a stream. It is estimated that more than 65 percent of the total pollutant loads. to
inland surface waters in the U.S. are due to NPS (Godrej et al. 1999). A wide variety
of pollutants are found in NPS runoff including sediments, toxins, nutrients, and
bacteria. Organic decomposition, erosion, fertilizers, and animal waste are some of
the primary sources of the sediments, nutrients, and bacteria present in NPS runoff.
ULSC is an impaired stream due to poor fish scores resulting from loss of habitat and
pollution.
Several studies have documented that the majority of the annual pollutant load
associated with stormwater runoff is associated with the smaller more frequent
events, and that the smaller sized sediment particles carry most of the pollutant load.
' Consequently, it is recommended that water quality treatment systems target the
smaller storms and that adequate pretreatment is provided. For many of the humid
areas of the country, about 90 percent of all rainfall events generate a runoff depth of
' approximately 1 inch. In the absence of a more rigorous rainfall frequency analysis,1
inch of rainfall per impervious acre is a reasonable criterion to strive for.
' 1.2.1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total suspended solids (TSS) are the laboratory measurement of the amount of
sediment and other particulates in the water column (i.e., how muddy the water is).
In developing areas, excessive sediment pollution is primarily associated with poor
erosion and sediment controls at construction sites. In developed areas, sediment
pollution is often associated with unstable channels. Sediments increase the turbidity
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3
'
Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wallingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin

' of water and reduce storage capacity available in lakes and reservoirs. Sediments also
negatively impact fish by clogging their gills and reducing visibility for scavenging
and prey capture. In addition, sediments smother bottom organisms. Finally,
suspended sediments and other particulates provide a surface on which other
pollutants adsorb and are transported downstream. These toxic pollutants can be
later remobilized into the water column under suitable (i.e., reducing or anaerobic)
environmental conditions.
1.2.2 Nutrients
Various types of nutrients are required for plant growth. Excessive loadings of
nutrients to a reservoir, for example, stimulate an overabundance of plant material
including algae. The nutrients of greatest concern (i.e., limiting nutrients) in a
' reservoir are phosphorus and nitrogen. Water quality problems associated with algal
blooms range from simple nuisance or unaesthetic conditions to noxious taste and
odor problems, dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion, and fish kills. In addition, algal
' blooms are known to be precursors to the development of trihalomethanes (a known
carcinogen) in a finished water supply. Collectively, the problems associated with
excessive levels of nutrients in a receiving water are referred to as eutrophication
impacts. Sources of nutrients include lawn fertilizers, atmospheric deposition, and
gasoline additives in the case of phosphorus.
' 1.2.3 Metals
Heavy metals such as lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc are also common in NPS
' runoff and originate from automobiles, tires, paint, pesticides, and roof materials.
Heavy metals are toxic to humans and aquatic life and accumulate in fish. Lead,
copper, zinc, and cadmium are the metals that typically exhibit greater concentrations
than other metals found in urban runoff. The presence of these metals may be
indicative of the presence of other toxic pollutants such as synthetic organics.
' 1.2.4 Bacteria
Bacteria in NPS runoff can make the water unsuitable for uses that involve human
body contact. Bacteria contamination is ranked as the third most common cause of
non-attainment of water quality standards of our streams and rivers following
sediment and nutrients (USEPA 1998). In addition, bacteria were cited as the third
greatest pollutant of concern in a national survey of 272 surface water supply utilities
' (Robbins 1991). Sources of bacteria in the watershed include sewer lines, septic
systems, livestock, wildlife, waterfowl, pets, soil, and plants (Schueler 1999).
However, a means of identifying and managing sources in a given watershed is not
well understood. Coliform bacteria have been detected in water quality samples
taken by the USGS throughout the country and across all land use types, from forest
to urban. Coliform bacteria, which are typically found in the digestive tract of
' mammals, are often used as an indicator of the presence or absence of other types of
bacteria. There is significant debate, however, amongst regulators whether other
bacterial groups are better indicators of potential human health risk (Schueler 1999).
' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
11

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
' The forms of coliform bacteria measured include total, fecal, and Escherichia coli (E.
coli). Fecal streptococci are a separate bacteria group often used to determine
whether a waste is of human origin (Schueler 1999). An analysis of the stormwater
runoff quality data gathered under NURP found a mean fecal coliform concentration
' of approximately 20,000 colonies per 100 ml, (Pitt 1998). Table 1 shows a comparison
of typical coliform bacteria concentrations in various waste streams.

Table 1
Typical coliform bacteria levels (MPN/100 mL) in various waste streams.
(Source: Schueler 1999)
It is commonly believed that bacteria rapidly die-out in the environment. Exposure to
sunlight is the most effective means of killing bacteria. However, research indicates

' that bacteria can settle (after adsorbing to soil particles or to other bacteria) in the
warm and dark sediments of streams and lakes for an extended time period (Schueler
1999). As a result, under dynamic conditions, the drainage system itself can be a
' source of bacteria in urban runoff. Schueler (1999) suggests the following design
BMPs:
criteria to enhance bacterial removal of water qualit
y

' ¦ Provide high light conditions through construction of multiple cells that reduce
where the last cell would have clearest water.
turbidit
y

' ¦ Provide retention times of 2 to 5 days to enhance settling.
¦ Prevent turbulent flows that would re-suspend accumulated sediments and
associated bacteria.
¦ Discourage large geese populations through heavily vegetated shorelines and
minimal open-water zones.
¦ Consider pre-treatment facilities such as bio-retention that utilize soil infiltration
and mimic septic systems. These systems must dry-out periodically to kill the
bacteria.
¦ Design stormwater conveyance systems to be self-cleaning to avoid creating
' bacteria habitat.

Waste Stream Total
Coliform Fecal
Coliform Fecal
Streptococci
Raw Sewage 2.3 x 10' 6.4 x 106 1.2 x 106
Combined Sewer Overflow 104 -101 104 -106 105
Failed Septic Tank 104 -10' 104 -106 105
Urban Stormwater Runoff 104 -105 2.0 x 104 102 -105
Forest Runoff 102 -103 101 -102 102 - 103
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

'J
fl

i

i

1

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis Development
The computer model Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) within the
BASINS framework was used to evaluate continuous water quality in the Upper Little
Sugar Creek study area. The model was used to calculate surface runoff, interflow,
and groundwater flow from the land to the area's receiving streams, and to route
these flows through the study area. The model was also used to calculate the loads of
various water quality constituents (e.g., nutrients, metals, sediment) carried with the
land-based inflows, and to route these constituent loads through the study area. To
the extent possible, flow and water quality parameters were calibrated by comparison
of model results with local data.
2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling in HSPF
The HSPF model represents the study area as a combination of the following model
elements:
¦ Impervious land area (IMPLND module)
¦ Pervious land area (PERLND module)
¦ Stream reaches (RCHRES module)
For pervious areas, HSPF uses parameter values supplied by the modeler to
determine how much of the study drainage area rainfall is (1) intercepted by
vegetation, (2) is converted to runoff, or (3) infiltrates into the soil. The model also
determines how the infiltrated water is distributed between (1) evapotranspiration, (2)
groundwater outflow to the study area stream network, and (3) groundwater loss to
deep storage. For impervious areas, HSPF determines how much of the rainfall is
captured by depression storage versus that which is converted to direct stormwater
runoff. In the stream reaches, the model uses an outflow-storage relationship
provided by the modeler to route the land-based flows and upstream reach inflows
through the reach.
The land use distribution in the study area is presented in Table 2. The table lists the
' land use types, assumed percent imperviousness, and area associated with each land
use. Overall, the study area is about 20 percent impervious.
' In modeling the ULSC study area using HSPF, an iterative calibration approach
relying on previous modeling studies of the Southeastern Piedmont was used.
Insufficient water quality monitoring data was available for a rigorous calibration of
HSPF. For example, the initial hydrologic parameter values in HSPF were taken from
a previous study of a watershed in Fulton County, GA (CDM 2000). In that study, the
hydrologic parameters were calibrated by comparing measured daily flows at a
' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6

L?

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase / Welingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin

Land Use Area
(acres) Percent
Impervious
Light Commercial 104 47%
> 2 Acres Residential/Open Space 124 1%
0.25 - 0.5 Acre Residential 609 22%
0.25 Acre Residential/Apartments 106 34%
0.5 - 2 Acres Residential 147 15%
Heavy Commercial 10 69%
Institutional 15 49%
Light Industrial 17 24%
Woods/Brush 147 0%
TOTALS: 1,278 20%
Table 2
Land Use and Percent Impervious of Project Drainage Area
USGS gage in the watershed to daily flows calculated by the HSPF model of the
watershed using local rainfall data to drive the simulation.
For the Upper Little Sugar Creek HSPF model, hydrologic parameters were then
refined by comparison of unit flows (e.g., inches of stream flow) at the study area
outlet (at N. Tryon St.) to measured unit flows at USGS gage 02146507 (Little Sugar
Creek at Archdale Drive). The HSPF model of the ULSC study area was run using
BASINS provided meteorological data for the years 1970 through 1995 including
rainfall at the Charlotte-Douglas Airport. Modeled and measured unit flows for the
years 1991 through 1995 were compared. The measured flows at the gage were
adjusted to account for a wastewater discharge that is located 0.4 miles upstream of
the USGS gage. According to the USGS, the wastewater flow during the period 1991-
1995 was approximately 18.2 cfs, so this value was subtracted from the measured
stream flow such that the measured flow reflected only the land-based flow sources
driven by rainfall. The more recent 1991-1995 records were compared because this is
the period for which the current land use is most representative and the wastewater
discharge rate is known.
Final HSPF hydrologic model parameter values are presented in Table A-1 (Appendix
A). For comparison, the table also shows typical values. In all cases, the calibrated
values are within the usual range of model values.
After the hydrologic parameters were adjusted, there was very good agreement
between modeled and measured stream flows on both an annual and seasonal basis
as shown in Table A-2. The differences between the measured and modeled flows are
less than 10 percent on both an annual and seasonal basis when the fall 1992 period is
excluded. This period exhibited substantial difference between the measured flow
(6.7 inches) and modeled flow (13.5 inches). A review of the rainfall data indicated
that 20.2 inches of rain was recorded at Charlotte Douglas Airport during the fall of
1992. The measured stream flow during that period seems unreasonable when
compared to the rainfall. It is likely that the rainfall on the area upstream of the USGS
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

1
Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wallingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
gage was substantially less than the rainfall at the airport during that period, which
would explain the large difference between modeled and measured flows.
The stream system in the study area consisted of three reaches. These included:
1. Upper Little Sugar Creek upstream of Wellingford Street.
2. Upper Little Sugar Creek tributary upstream of Springview Road.
3. Upper Little Sugar Creek between Wellingford Street/Springview Road and
North Tryon Street.
For each stream segment, storage-outflow relationships were developed using stream
routing data from the EXTRAN and HEC-RAS models of the study area developed as
part of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling carried out for flooding analyses
discussed elsewhere. The EXTRAN routing data were used under low- to moderate-
flow conditions which are predominant in a continuous simulation. The HEC-RAS
routing data was used for high flow conditions with associated backwater, conditions.
2.2 Water Quality Modeling in HSPF
For surface runoff quality, initial parameter values were taken from the previous
Fulton County, GA watershed study (CDM 2000). These values (available on request)
were used in a long-term water quality simulation (1970-1995) using hourly
meteorological data from Charlotte Douglas Airport. Constituents simulated in the
model include total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (total P), total nitrogen
(total N), dissolved phosphorus (dissolved P), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Average annual loads were compared to available local data to assess the
loads calculated by the model.
Sediment (TSS) was modeled in the PERLND, IMPLND, and RCHRES modules of
HSPF. For pervious areas, HSPF uses parameter values supplied by the modeler to
account for surface processes such as detachment of sediment due to rainfall, wash off
of sediment with surface runoff, and re-attachment of detached sediment during the
dry periods between storms. For impervious areas, HSPF calculates the buildup of
sediment on the surface during dry periods and wash off of sediment with runoff
during wet periods. In the stream reaches, the model calculates the potential for
scour (erosion) and deposition (settling) of sand, silt, and clay sediment particles. The
sand load carried by the stream is calculated as a function of velocity. The model uses
threshold shear stress values to determine when scour or deposition is occurring in
the stream.
The other water quality constituents were modeled as "general quality" constituents
in HSPF. For both pervious and impervious areas, the land-based constituent loads
were calculated in one of three ways:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

LJ

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
1. Buildup of constituent on land surface during dry periods and wash off of
constituent with runoff during wet periods.
2. Wash off of constituent calculated using "potency factors" (units of pounds of
constituent per ton of sediment) to calculate constituent load as a function of
sediment load.
3. A combination of the two methods listed above.
In the stream reaches, the constituents were generally routed through the system
assuming no losses. The only exception was fecal coliform bacteria, which was
assigned a first-order die-off rate. The assigned die-off rate of 0.69/ day is based on
the assumption that the bacteria have a half-life of 1 day.
The constituent concentrations of interflow and groundwater flow were based on
local monitoring data collected at North Tryon Street during the period 1994 through
1999 (MCDEP 1999). Through much of the period, monthly grab samples were taken.
A comparison of sampling dates and local rainfall data indicates that the samples
were taken during dry weather conditions. Sampled constituents included total P,
total N, BOD, and fecal coliform bacteria. The concentrations used in the model are
presented in Table A-3.
For constituents that were not monitored, the interflow and groundwater
concentrations were based on regression equations developed in a USGS study (1999).
Separate regression equations were developed for nine sampling stations in the
Charlotte area. These equations relate in-stream loadings (kg/ d) to in-stream flow
rates (cfs). By applying a typical average dry-weather flow rate (0.9 cfs/sq mi), a
typical dry-weather concentration was calculated for each station. The values used in
the model are typically the average or median value for the nine stations. This
approach was used to calculate dry-weather concentrations for copper, lead, and zinc.
Values used in the model are also presented in Table A-3.
No studies were available to determine dry-weather concentrations for COD or
dissolved P. The COD values used in the Fulton County, GA study (CDM 2000) were
used in this study.
Table A-4 summarizes the average annual loads that were calculated by the HSPF
model for the years 1970 through 1995. The table also compares the calculated loads
to the loads calculated from the USGS regression equations for the nine local
sampling stations. The equations were modified to calculate daily loads as a function
of unit flows (inches per day), and the average annual loads were then calculated by
using the modified equations in conjunction with the daily unit flows calculated by
HSPF at North Tryon Street.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 9
Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase l Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
As shown in Table A-4, the values calculated by HSPF fall within the range of values
calculated using the regression models. For the nutrients (total P and total N), the
modeled values are at the low end of the range of values calculated from the
regression equations. However, the modeled values appear to be reasonable with
respect to other loading studies, and the values from the regression equations in some
cases appear to be more representative of agricultural areas when compared to
literature values. In several cases, the regression equations exhibited concentrations
' during low-flow conditions that were as high or higher than concentrations under
high-flow conditions, suggesting that the low flows were affected by point sources
(which should not be the case).
Section 3
Water Quality Evaluation Of Alternative
Wetland/Pond Treatment Designs
Three alternative treatment designs were developed for the study area. These
alternatives are illustrated in Figures 2 through 6 located at the end of this
memorandum. Each of the alternative urban retrofit treatment designs consists of one
or more of the following components.
¦ Wet detention ponds
¦ Extended dry detention ponds
W
l
d
an
et
s
¦
1 The following briefly discusses typical applications of each of the BMP types.
3.1 Wet Detention Ponds
1 Stormwater ponds have some of the best water quality performance capabilities of
any stormwater treatment practice. This is in large part due to the residence time and
settling properties of the permanent pool.
Detention refers to the temporary storage of excess runoff on site prior to gradual
?'
release after the peak of the storm inflow has passed (hydrologic and flood control).
Runoff is held for a period of time and is slowly released to a natural or manmade
watercourse, usually at a rate no greater than the pre-development peak discharge
rate. For water quantity, detention facilities will not reduce the total volume of
runoff, but will redistribute the rate of runoff over a longer period of time by
providing temporary storage for the stormwater. Another objective of a wet
detention facility is to remove pollutants produced from the tributary area.
A wet detention system includes a permanent pool of water, a shallow littoral zone
with aquatic plants, and the capacity to provide detention for an extended time
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 10
' Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
necessary for the treatment of a required volume of runoff. In wet detention ponds,
' pollutant removal occurs primarily within a permanent pool during the period of
time between storm events. They are typically sized to provide at least a 2-week
hydraulic residence time during the wet season. The primary mechanism for the
removal of particulate forms of pollutants in wet detention ponds is sedimentation.
Wet detention ponds can also achieve substantial reductions in soluble nutrients due
to biological and physical/ chemical processes within the permanent pool.
3.1.1 Wet Detention Pollutant Removal Mechanisms
Pollutant removal within the wet detention pond can be attributed to the following
important pollutant removal processes that occur within the permanent pool: uptake
of nutrients by algae and rooted aquatic plants, adsorption of nutrients and heavy
metals onto bottom sediments, biological oxidation of organic materials, and
sedimentation of suspended solids and attached pollutants.
Uptake by algae and rooted aquatic plants is probably the most important process for
the removal of nutrients. Sedimentation and adsorption onto bottom sediments are
probably the most important removal mechanisms for heavy metals. Absorption
conditions at the bottom of the permanent pool will maximize the uptake of
phosphorus and heavy metals by bottom sediments and minimize pollutant releases
from the sediments into the water column. Since ponds that exhibit thermal
stratification (i.e., separation of the permanent pool into an upper layer of high
temperature and a lower layer of low temperature) are likely to exhibit anaerobic
bottom waters during the summer months, relatively shallow (6 to 12 feet deep)
permanent pools that maximize vertical mixing are preferable to relatively deep
ponds. Ideally, water depth should be great enough to prohibit nuisance aquatic
plant species in the open water portion of the pond (greater than 6 feet). A minimum
depth of 6 to 12 inches should also be maintained in the littoral zone of the permanent
pool to suppress mosquito breeding.
It is generally accepted that good wet detention design includes a littoral zone
containing rooted aquatic plants. The enhanced water quality benefits of including
the plantings have been discussed above, however, the magnitude of the increased
pollutant removal efficiencies due to the planted littoral zone have not been
quantified to date.
3.1.2 Benefits of Wet Detention
Wet detention BMPs do offer some other advantages that should be highlighted. Wet
detention ponds are usually more visually appealing than dry ponds, particularly if
there is desirable wetland vegetation around the perimeter of the permanent pool.
When properly designed and constructed, wet detention ponds are actually
considered as property value amenities in many areas. Also, wet detention ponds
offer the advantage that sediment and debris accumulate within the permanent pool.
Since these accumulations are out-of-sight and well below the pond outlet, wet
1 detention ponds tend to require less frequent cleanouts to maintain an attractive
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11

1

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
appearance and prevent clogging. Sediment forebay areas (or sumps) are
recommended whenever possible.
3.2 Extended Dry Detention Ponds
Extended dry detention ponds (sometimes referred to as dry detention ponds)
combine the beneficial features of retention ponds (dry, grassed bottom) and wet
detention ponds (flood and hydrologic detention and high pollutant removal
efficiencies for settleable solids). However, they do not necessarily use certain
valuable features of retention ponds (volume control and aquifer recharge) or wet
detention ponds (high dissolved nutrient removal efficiencies) unless they are
designed with some upstream retention prior to detention or they incorporate a small
permanent pool, respectively. Extended dry detention ponds increase detention times
to provide treatment for the captured first-flush runoff to enhance solids settling and
the removal of suspended pollutants. Extended dry detention facilities are drawn
down through a control structure at a rate that is slow enough to achieve maximum
pollutant removal by sedimentation.
These types of detention ponds can be designed to achieve heavy metal loading
reductions (e.g., 75 percent for lead and 40 percent for zinc) that are similar to wet
detention ponds since heavy metals in urban runoff tend to be primarily in suspended
form. However, wet detention pond BMPs can achieve greater loading reductions for
nutrients which tend to appear primarily in dissolved form in urban runoff.
Extended dry detention ponds require less storage and cost less than wet detention
ponds because they rely solely upon sedimentation processes without the expense of
additional storage for the pool (i.e., portion of the pond that holds water at all times).
However, in many retrofit cases, a certain fixed amount of open water area typically
needs to be excavated to reduce flooding. Since this area needs to be at least 6 feet
deep to discourage undesirable aquatic weeds, some wet detention will occur as an
additional benefit. It should be noted that extended dry detention might be useful in
areas where retrofit of BMPs is required.
3.3 Stormwater Wetlands
A stormwater wetland is a man-made system designed to treat stormwater. In
contrast to a natural wetland, a stormwater wetland has a hydroperiod that is
determined primarily by surface runoff. The hydroperiod of a stormwater wetland is
a cycle of flooding and drawdown that can occur several times in a year, and some
standing water is often present year round (Schueler et al. 1992). The variable
hydroperiod restricts the variety of plant species that can grow in a stormwater
wetland. Only those species that can tolerate the harsh dynamic environment of a
stormwater wetland will flourish there. Ideally, the base of the wetland should be
located below the seasonal low groundwater level to ensure that it remains wet year-
round.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 12

1

['I

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
Since stormwater wetlands are designed specifically to receive urban runoff, they
generally contain higher sediment and nutrient levels than natural wetlands. These
factors further restrict the plant species that will grow, and the resultant increased
turbidity of the water restricts the overall potential for wildlife habitat.
Stormwater wetlands are built with fixed boundaries and generally contain simple
topographic structure compared to natural wetlands (Schueler et al. 1992).
Stormwater wetlands are also generally not self-maintaining. To flourish for an
extended period, they require active maintenance. Such maintenance may include
sediment removal, bank stabilization, or in the case of severe drought, artificial
inundation (i.e., watering).
An extended detention (ED) wetland consists of a forebay located near the inlet, a
wetland area, and a micropool located near the outlet (Figure 1). The purpose of the
forebay is to reduce the velocity of the incoming runoff, trap sediments, distribute
runoff over the marsh, and extend the flow path. The forebay is separated from the
rest of the wetland by gabions or an earthen berm. The marsh provides an
environment for various wetland plants. The primary purpose of the micropool is to
allow enough depth (2.5 feet minimum) near the outlet so that a reverse-sloped pipe
v v v y
::. . ; -:;are•:::.::•.. Maintenance ?T
*A-Sediment
pool Disposal Area ,
F ??Fj, a?? 11 ly ;??••7=
! ? •? ? ` ?? ? .l= : 'Ni' ?n Round •
Trash Rar*
lo marsh
? ????y? t.??- ? mot"' ?' fir' .`i? ?4- ??'? •?8re.d
W- 44
hi marsh

Figure 1
Typical extended detention wetland
From: Schueler, 1992
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 13

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wel ingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
1
can extend into the normal pool for the purpose of draining the wetland. The
micropool also provides storage for accumulated sediments and organic matter in
addition to a habitat for deep-water wetland plants and beneficial algae and other
microorganisms. The micropool should always remain full even in periods of
drought. A gate valve within a riser typically controls the micropool drain.
1 Common rules of thumb for designing typical constructed wetlands include the
following for allocating surface area:

¦ 10 percent for forebay.
¦ 5 to 10 percent for micropool.
' ¦ Remainder to the marsh zone with sufficient topographic variety that half of the
area remains wet and half dries out periodically.
In addition, it is recommended that soils obtained on site would be stockpiled during
construction and amended with organic material to promote the growth of wetlands
plantings prior to re-installation.
1
3.3.1 Wetland Pollutant Removal Mechanisms
Wetland vegetation provides biological uptake of nutrients and contaminants as well
as sites for the microbial decomposition of nutrients in stormwater runoff (Denison
and Tilton 1993). It is believed that stormwater wetlands provide more ways to
remove pollutants than any other structural BMP (NCCES 1999). The dense
vegetation of a wetland marsh zone requires an abundant supply of available
nutrients. A great deal of the nutrients that enter a stormwater wetland are adsorbed
onto particles which settle out into the wetland sediment. These nutrients are then
taken up by the roots of aquatic plants and metabolized. Usually, once a soil becomes
saturated it soon becomes anaerobic. Wetland plants transport oxygen deeper into
the soil than would otherwise occur by diffusion processes alone creating a more
extensive aerobic zone. This phenomenon strongly influences chemical reactions
associated with pollutant removal at the soil-water interface. For example, organic
nitrogen can be converted through a complex process (i.e., the nitrogen cycle) to
nitrogen gas that exits the system. As a result, the pollutant removal capability of a
given plant species may be a function of its root depth (i.e., greater root depth equals
greater pollution removal).
Partially or fully submerged aquatic plants also represent a great deal of stem and leaf
surface area onto which water-borne nutrients can adsorb and onto which a microbial
slime layer can form. Microorganisms in the water then work to decompose
nutrients. Later, as wetland vegetation decomposes, nutrients are slowly released
back into the water. It is this high-uptake, low-release characteristic of wetland
vegetation that allows stormwater wetlands to absorb the concentrated nutrient loads
present in urban runoff. It may be necessary to harvest wetland plant material
1
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 14

u

1
fl

L_ J

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
periodically to assure long-term nutrient removal efficiencies, but this has yet to be
proven and is somewhat controversial.
3.3.1.1 Sedimentation
Sedimentation is the most important mechanism whereby pollutants are removed
from runoff in pond/wetland systems. The process of adsorption through
electrostatic attraction, hydrogen bonding, and chemical reactions coat suspended
particulates with various pollutants. Sedimentation has been documented as being a
significant removal pathway for phosphorus, oils, hydrocarbons, and most metals
(Dennison and Tilton 1993). Flow patterns through the wetland system strongly
influence the sedimentation process. In general, sheet flow and meandering channels
enhance sedimentation.
3.3.1.2 Nitrogen Removal
Nitrogen is typically present in high concentrations in urban stormwater runoff.
Stormwater wetlands are capable of reducing the loads of nitrogen entering the
wetland in various forms including organic nitrogen, ammonium-nitrogen, and
nitrate-nitrogen (Denison and Tilton 1993). In order to understand the roles that
microorganisms and aquatic plants play in nitrogen removal, it is necessary to
consider the complex nitrogen cycle as it occurs in a wetland. Wetland plants are
very effective at taking up nitrate through their roots, but not all nitrogen entering a
wetland is in the form of nitrate. Organic nitrogen in runoff must first be converted to
ammonium by microorganisms in the water. Under aerobic conditions, bacteria then
oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. This process is called nitrification. Plants may then
take up a fraction of the ammonium. Under anaerobic conditions, nitrate is converted
to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria. As a result of this complex cycle and the fact
that as vegetation dies organic matter exits the wetland, wetlands are not believed
effective at removing organic nitrogen on an annual basis (i.e., active growing season
removal rates may be quite high).
3.3.1.3 Phosphorus Removal
Orthophosphate is the only form of phosphorus that is biologically available.
Phosphorus may be removed through adsorption and precipitation. However, under
anaerobic conditions that are common in the soil of a productive wetland,
precipitated phosphorus may be released (i.e., the adsorption bonds broken). In
general, compared to some other structural BMPs, constructed wetlands are superior
in removing phosphorus (NCCES 1999).
3.4 BMP Model Removal Efficiencies
Models to simulate the pollutant removal efficiency of various BMPs are limited. As a
result, a hybrid approach using limited BMP modeling in combination with literature
estimates of pollutant removal efficiencies was developed in this project as discussed
below.
CiDM Camp Dresser & McKee 15
11

[l

rl

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
Table 3 lists typical constituent removal efficiencies for wet and extended dry
detention ponds. When examining Table 3 it is important to keep in mind that this
table applies to BMPs designed to a particular performance standard that may not be
feasible for an urban retrofit BMP. For example, for wet detention ponds, the values
presented assume an average 2-week residence time in the permanent pool of the wet
pond. For extended dry detention ponds, the values presented assume that 90
percent of the runoff is captured and treated by the pond. This criterion for dry
detention is considered appropriate for sizing BMPs for new development because
larger BMPs will cost more without appreciably increasing the effectiveness of the
BMP (i.e., 90 percent capture is the point of diminishing returns).
Range of Pollutant Removal
Rates (%)

Pollutant Dry
Detention' Wet
Detention2
Retention3
Swales° Baffle
Boxes5
BOD5 20%-30% 20%-40% 80%-99% 20%-40% 0%
COD 20%-30% 20%-40% 80%-99% 20%-40% 0%
TSS 80%-90% 80%-90% 80%-99% 70%-90% 80%-95%
TDS 0% 20%-40% 80%-99% 0%-20% 0%

Total-P 20%-30% 40%-50% 80%-99% 30%-50% 25%-45%
Dissolved-P 0% 60%-70% 80%-99% 0%-20% 0%
TKN 10%-20% 20%-30% 80%-99% 30%-50% 10%-30%
NO2+NO3 0% 30%-40% 80%-99% 30%-50% 30%-50%

Lead 70%-80% 70%-80% 80%-99% 60%-90% 65%-85%
Copper 50%-60% 60%-70% 80%-99% 40%-60% 40%-60%
Zinc 40%-50% 40%-50% 80%-99% 40%-50% 25%-45%
Cadmium 70%-80% 70%-80% 80%-99% 50%-80% 50%-70%
Table 3
Average Annual Pollutant Removal Rates for
Retention and Detention BMPs
Notes:
1. Dry detention basin efficiencies are based on a storage capacity of the detention pool sized to
achieve the design detention time for at least 80% to 90% of the annual runoff volume. For most
areas of the U.S. extended dry detention basin efficiencies are based on a storage volume of at
least 0.5 to 1.0 inches per impervious acre.
2. Wet detention basin efficiencies are based on a permanent pool storage volume that achieves
average hydraulic residence time of at least two weeks. In addition, a "live pool" of 0.5 to 1.0
inches is typically provided for erosion control.
3. Retention removal rates are based on retention BMP storage capacity to capture 80% to 90% of
the annual runoff volume from the BMP tributary area. For most areas of the U.S., the required
minimum storage capacity of the retention BMP will be in the range of 0.50 to 1.0 inch of runoff.
4. Source: California Storm Water Management Practices Manual (CDM, et al, 1993); Wanielista,
1988.
5. Baffle boxes are based on a 85% to 90% average annual volume capture (i.e., 85% to 90% of the
average annual runoff volume flows through the device at a rate to promote settling of the target
suspended solids.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 16
Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase 1 Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
As discussed previously, because the size of the tributary area relative to the size of
t the water quality treatment area is greater than the ideal, the alternative treatment
designs will not meet the appropriate sizing criteria discussed above. Consequently,
methods were developed to adjust the values in Table 2 to reflect the size of the
proposed ponds with respect to the tributary area.
For wet ponds, the removal of TSS was estimated using the methodology presented
by Driscoll (1986). By the Driscoll approach, the removal of TSS can be estimated
based on the mean depth of the wet detention pool and the ratio VB/VR, where VB is
the permanent pool volume and VR is the runoff volume from the average storm.
Curves relating TSS removal to permanent pool depth and VB/ VR ratio is presented
in Appendix A, Figure A-1.
Removal of nutrients (total P, total N) in wet ponds was estimated using relationships
developed by Walker (1988). Equations developed by Walker relate the total N and
total P concentrations in the pond to factors including the inflow concentrations, the
fraction of inorganic nutrients, the pond depth, and the mean residence time.
The removal of other constituents from the wet ponds was based on the removal
calculated for TSS and nutrients. Metals such as lead and cadmium, which are
predominantly attached to sediment, were assigned removal efficiencies based on
their optimal efficiency and the ratio of actual to optimal removal for TSS. For
predominantly dissolved constituents such as dissolved P, the removal efficiency was
based on the optimal removal efficiency and the ratio of actual to optimal ratio for
total N. For fecal coliform bacteria, the removal was calculated based on the average
residence time of the wet pond assuming a first-order die-off rate of 1.0/ day.
Additional details regarding the modeling of BMPs are available upon request.
For wetlands, an approach similar to that used for wet detention ponds was used.
This is based on the observation of Brown and Schueler (1997) after reviewing water
quality monitoring data from studies carried out since 1977 that meet the following
' three criteria: (1) four or more storm samples were collected, (2) composite samples
were used, and (3) the method to compute removal efficiency was documented. They
concluded that wet ponds and stormwater wetlands exhibited similar removal
capabilities and were, effectively, interchangeable in this regard. However, there was
much less monitoring data available for wetlands than for wet ponds at this time. For
this analysis, wetlands were assumed to be equivalent to shallow wet detention
ponds.
For extended dry ponds, the HSPF model was run for the years 1970 through 1995 to
determine the overall percent of flow and load captured and treated by the extended
detention. The proposed extended detention (Alternative 2) was incorporated into
the HSPF model as a reach. The storage in the reach represented the proposed
extended detention storage plus natural storage above the extended detention
storage. The reach outflow was defined by two outlets: (1) the first outlet represented
CDM Camp Dreamer & McKee 17

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
The multiple treatment cells exhibited in Alternative 1 are required to accommodate
multiple site constraints including an existing sanitary sewer, roads, and adjacent
properties. Most of the treatment cells are fitted with a small forebay area to pre-treat
local runoff prior to entering the system. Large flood waves will bypass the treatment
cells (via a small bypass structure located in the stream and shown on the figure as a
black triangle) located upstream of Wellingford and Springview Roads through the
existing open channels. The habitat potential of the existing open channels will be
enhanced with suitable plantings and hydraulic features as appropriate.
A variation of Alternative 1 was considered for the water quality analysis to maximize
BMP treatment volume. As shown on the concept plan (Figure 2), there are two open
pools in the area between the existing sewer and Wellingford Street that are separated
by an earthen berm. The variation involves combining these pools into one large
open pool that encompass the same area. Removing the berm creates greater open
pool surface area to maximize treatment efficiency. The main reason for designing
two open pools rather than one large pool was to maximize wetland planting area
and reduce the amount of excavation. This scenario is named Alternative 1b, and the
construction cost is about the same as Alternative 1. A detailed construction cost
estimate is included in Appendix A, Table A-7.
Estimated removal efficiencies for Alternative 1 (and all other alternatives) are
summarized in Table 4. Detailed removal efficiency information is presented in Table
A-5. Based on a total permanent pool volume of 0.147 inches, an annual runoff total
of 11.4 inches, average storm duration of 5.9 hours, average inter-storm duration of 77
hours, a VB/VR ratio of 1.52 is calculated for the entire wet pond system. Using a
mean pool depth of 3.98 feet and VB/VR of 1.53, a value of 63 percent TSS removal
was taken from Figure A-1. Using Walker's equations, the estimated total P and total
N removal efficiencies are 16 percent and 7 percent, respectively. For fecal coliform
bacteria, a removal of 73 percent was estimated based on a mean residence time of
2.63 days in the wet detention system. Removal efficiencies for other constituents
range from 16 percent (BOD and COD) to 55 percent (lead and cadmium).
3.5.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except that the detention ponds upstream of
Springview Road and Wellington Street and some of the detention ponds between
Springview Road and North Tryon Street are replaced by extended dry detention
ponds which require less excavation - a major cost component on this project (see
Figure 3). There is still one wet detention pond (or open pool) at the downstream end
of the system. Discharge from the wet detention pond goes through the North Tryon
Street culverts as in Alternative 1.
The calculation of removal efficiency for Alternative 2 was separated into two
calculations: removal in the extended detention ponds preceding the wet detention
pond at North Tryon Street, and the removal in the wet detention pond.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 19

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin

The estimated removal efficiencies for Alternative 2 are also presented in Table 4. As
shown in the table, the expected TSS removal in the treatment system is 63 percent.
This calculation is a function of the percent load capture and treatment in the
extended dry ponds and the depth and VB/VR ratio in the wet detention pond. For
total P and total N, the removal values were calculated based on the mean depth,
residence time, inflow concentrations for the wet detention ponds, and the percent
load capture and treatment in the extended dry ponds. The expected nutrient
removal for the system is 14 percent and 6 percent for total P and total N, respectively.
Removal efficiencies for other constituents range from 16 percent (BOD) to 56 percent
(lead, cadmium).
A comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 indicates that there is little difference between
the removal efficiencies of the two alternatives, particularly for TSS and constituents
that are predominantly attached to sediment (e.g., lead, cadmium). This indicates that
the average residence time in the wet detention ponds in Alternative 1 is too low to
provide appreciable removal of the dissolved form of constituents. The only
constituents that exhibit noticeably higher removal in Alternative 1 are dissolved P
and fecal coliform bacteria.
3.5.3 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists primarily of wet detention and wetland areas with wet meadow
habitat and sinuous channels. Loads from the Upper Little Sugar Creek upstream of
Wellingford Street are diverted through a primary treatment wet detention pond.
Loads from the Upper Little Sugar Creek tributary upstream of Springview Road are
routed through a wetland area. Figure 7 provides a cross-section through this
wetland area. The discharge from the Springview Road meadow is directed to
another wetland area downstream of Springview Road. The discharge from that
wetland area, and the discharge from the Wellingford Road pond, is directed to a
single wet detention pond upstream of North Tryon Street. Treatment volume of the
downstream wet detention pond has been greatly enhanced by combining the cells
that were previously separated by an existing sanitary trunk sewer. Under
Alternative 3, the sanitary sewer has been largely re-routed around the facility to
accommodate the large pond. As in the other alternatives, discharge from the wet
i pond goes through the North Tryon Street culverts
The wetland meadow contains a low-sloping meandering channel (Rosgen type E).
Native woodlands would be planted on the perimeter of the wetlands to create a
buffer and function as a community garden. Adding the meadow, and separating it
from the more water quality intensive open pool facilities, provides additional
ecological diversity and increases the range of habitat potentials at the site including
stable natural channel, wet meadows, forested wetlands, and vernal pools.
The beneficial stream channel modifications would involve creating a Rosgen stream
type E channel. The Rosgen E stream type has a very low width to depth ratio, a high
1 sinuosity, and low slope. The banks of these streams are typically stabilized by
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 20

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin

extensive wetland vegetation forming sod mats with dense rooting. The channel
morphology of E streams with low width to depth ratio is efficient at maintaining
sediment transport capacity. In addition, E stream channels are stable channel forms
with resistance to plan form adjustment. Because the channel would be sized to carry
the 1-year storm discharge, it would provide very little first flush pollutant removal.
However, 1,100 linear feet of stable stream channel would be created by meandering
the new channel through the created wetlands. This would directly replace the
existing 900 linear feet of straight, degraded channel on-site; and it would be an
increase of overall channel length relative to the other alternatives.
The wet meadow areas would be created throughout the floodplain adjacent to the
channel. Flows larger than the 1-year discharge would spread out across the
floodplain, attenuating velocities, and discharge. These wet meadow areas would
likely contain species such as Southern Blue Flag (Iris virginica), Soft Rush (Juncos
effuses), Wool-grass (Scirpus cyperlnus), and Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis) and
provide habitat for many species including songbirds and small mammals. The
wetland area upstream of Springview Road can be created with minimal grading
because the new channel invert would have to remain relatively high to cross the
existing sewer line to remain in this area. Some of the excavated material can be used
to fill the existing channel reach impacted by the proposed wetland meadow/ channel
system upstream of Springview. Further, a fraction of the water in the slow moving
and sinuous channel would exfiltrate and supply water to the downstream wetland
area.
1 Estimated removal efficiencies for Alternative 3 are presented in Table 4. They are
slightly higher than Alternative 1 as the permanent pool volume for Alternative 3 is
slightly greater than that of Alternative 1. Note that approximately $286,000 of the
total cost for this alternative is due to the relocation of sanitary sewers which may be
partially funded by others.
Section 4.0
References
Brown, W. and Schueler, T, 1997. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for
Stormwater BMPs. Prepared for: Chesapeake Research Consortium.
Camp Dresser & McKee, 2001. Big Creek Water Reclamation Facility Water Resources
Management Plan, prepared for Fulton County, Georgia.
Dennison, D. and D. Tilton, 1993. Literature Reviezv - Wetlands as a Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Measure. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration
Program, Wayne County, Michigan. Technical Memorandum.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 21

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase I Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin

Driscoll, E.D., 1983. Performance of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff
Quality, prepared for 1983 International Symposium for Urban Hydrology,
Hydraulics and Sediment Control, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Godrej, A. N., T. Grizzard, P. Kenel, L. Lampe, and J. Carleton, 1999. Evaluating the
Use of Constructed Wetlands in Urban Areas. Water Environment Research Foundation.
Hartigan, J.P., 1989. Basis for Design of Wet Detention Basin BMPs, Design of Urban
Runoff Quality Controls, Roesner, L.A., et al (Eds.), ASCE, New York, New York.
Mellichamp, T.L., J.F. Matthews, and M.C. Murray, 1996. Selection and Planting Guide
for Aquatic and Wetland Plants in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. University of
1 North Carolina (Charlotte).
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP),1999. Little
Sugar Creek - Davidson Street to Sugar Creek Road Channel Stabilization Project: Fish and
Macroinvertebrates Bioassessment 1 Year After Construction
.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension (NCCEE),1999. Designing Stormwater
Wetlands for Small Watersheds
.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR), Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, 1999.
Storm Water Best Management Practices.
Schueler, T.R., 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for Creating
Diverse and Effective Storm water Wetland Systems in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
1 Schueler, T., 1999. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources, and
Pathways. Watershed Protection Techniques 3(1): 554-565.
Schueler, T., 1999b. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Ways to Kill cEm. Watershed
Protection Techniques 3(1): 566-575.
U.S. EPA, 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (Volume I - Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),1999. Relation of Land Use to Streamflow and Water
Qaulity of Selected Sites in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, 1993-1998. Water Resources Investigation Report 99-4/80. Raleigh, NC.
Walker, W.W., 1987. Phosphorous Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins, Lake
and Reservoir Management: Volume III North American Lake Management Society,
Washington, DC, pp 314-326.
C+DM Camp Dresser & McKee 22

Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Project -
Phase / Wallingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin
Yousef, Y.A., et al., 1991. Maintenance Guidelines for Accumulated Sediments in
Retention/ Detention Ponds Receiving Highway Runoff: Final Report, prepared for
the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.

1

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 23
chortaffe-Meckknhurg -
STORM:
....,WATER
Services
`Ex1?1ng Slr?. •
Hidden Valley Ecological Garden
Wellingford Street Regional Water
Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental
Restoration Initiative
Summer 2002 ?r A:
Concept Plan (Alternative 1)
Key Wetland System Features

f
I ` 1 t

Existlr? Sewer
e ..... •'

? ? 'ri '? ,LI!!18'S}igarEreek

41 :

l f
r
'o
5? /
u.:
S)
Hers hey Street
-
Project Goals
-?•-r ?4??
- i
Y Open space
Improved water quality

e
l School and community nature
wer
Exists n?S r I
,? 5 Education tool
Passive recreation
Storage for flood waters
Restored stream function
%? Restored wildlife habitat
\_ Neighborhood improvement

V This site will also provide additional flood
mitigation benefits.

Discharges to Existing C vert
--
Primary Treatment Open Pool - intended to Q' Wetland Treatment y tern - promotes nutrient and nutrient uptake by littoral plantings, other
remove suspended sediments, floatables, suspended solids removal by increasing residence aquatic vegetation, and bio-processes.
and other solids from runoff before it time through the use of meanders. The system will The pools will be up to 6' deep and will
enters the wetland for treatment. These be located at stream level and includes remain filled with water at all times,
features include littoral zone plantings appropriate wetland plantings, micropools, and
along their banks to improve nutrient other features intended to maximize removal Community Perimeter Garden (landscaped
swale) -Perimeter gardens will provide
uptake and the visual appearance of the efficiencies. an opportunity for the community to be
pool.
Q. Low Forested Floodplain -Sections of stream will be
more Involved in the project by helping
Q Forebav - used adjacent to impervious areas re-routed through rehabitated wetland areas to to plant and maintain vegetation that will
like streets and parking lots to trap increase residence times and pollutant removal beautify the area. Landscaped swales are
sediments and other solids before they efficiencies. Low forested floodplain wetlands will V-shaped depressions along the center
enter the open pools. These features are include select plants and trees and meanders to of the garden used to trap street runoff,
used primarily because of their relative remove first-flush pollutants. These features will which will provide water for vegetation
ease of cleaning; they are typically dry, be at or near stream level and will generally and remove sediment and other
dewatering over 24 hours following a include constant sources of water. pollutants.
storm event. The forebays also rely on
plantings at their perimeter and in the l'J Open Pools - serve basically the same function as the
forebay for screening and to aid in primary treatment open pools, increasing
sediment removal. hydraulic residence time to allow for adequate C.DM ...
Figure 2
Charfoffe-Mecklenburg \
STORM
WATER
Servic?s /
Hidden Valley Ecological Garden €xl ingstre0' r' ?6 I '
Wellingford Street Regional Water 1 j
Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental:
Restoration Initiative
Summer 2002 r?
\ gyring ae ?o??
-rrf?''?T 1
Concept Plan (Alternative 2) \ _?-- _--
Key Wetland System Features
i (t
3
Exlslfr Sewer _ : f - - -
Lfitfe Sugar Creek
Hershey Street
2 Project Goals
1 space
t.r Open r f?' Improved water quality
\ )-
rt School and community nature
Ezistinq.S6werl s1 Education tool
/ ??' --- / Passive recreation
Storage for flood waters
Restored stream function
6 Restored wildlife habitat
Neighborhoodimprovement
f - %
This site will also provide additional flood
-r+ 2 mitigation benefits.
Discharges to Existing C' vert
rv Detention Basin - used to remove O Wetland Treatment System - promotes nutrient and Nutrient uptake by littoral plantings,
pollutants by allowing particles to settle suspended solids removal by increasing residence other aquatic vegetation, and bfo-
out and prevent stream bank erosion by time through the use of meanders. The system will processes. The pools will be up to 6'
reducing peak discharges. The basins dry be located at stream level and Includes deep and will remain filled with water at
out between rainfall events and can be appropriate wetland plantings, micropools, and O all times.
8
planted in wildflowers to improve other features intended to maximize removal Community Perimeter Garden (landscaped
appearance. efficiencies.
Swale) -Perimeter gardens will provide
xebav - used adjacent to impervious areas Q. Low Forested Floodolain - Sections of stream will be an opportunity for the community to be
like streets and parking lots to trap re-routed through rehabitated wetland areas to more involved in the project by helping
sediments and other solids before they increase residence times and pollutant removal to plant and maintain vegetation that will
enter the open pools. These features are efficiencies. Low forested floodplain wetlands will beautify the area. Landscaped swales are
used primarily because of their relative include select plants and trees and meanders to V-shaped depressions along the center
ease of cleaning; they are typically dry, remove first-flush pollutants. These features will of the garden used to trap street runoff,
dewatering over 24 hours following a be at or near stream level and will generally which will provide water for vegetation
storm event. The forebays also rely on include constant sources of water. and remove sediment and other
plantings at their perimeter and in the pollutants.
forebay for screening and to aid in open Pools - serve basically the same function as the
sediment removal. primary treatment open pools, increasing
hydraulic residence time to allow for adequate CDM
Figure 3
Relocated Sanitary Sewer
Hidden Valley Ecological Garden
Wellingford Street Regional Water
Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental
Restoration Initiative i/
Summer 2002
Concept Plan (Alternative 3)
Key Wetland System Features
J JS / ??
l
Jv ?
`4
`5j
springview Road

Little Sugar Creek
/J1 Relocated Sanitary Sewer
r r ? l?
? N
v
3
E
r Hershey Street ^? - -
t-I
1 k
i -7 Project Goals
r Open space
I J lr 1 Improved water quality -^
7 1 r - School and community nature
Education tool
Passive recreation
( - torage for flood waters
` ''1 r per Restored stream function- - --
2 /Jestored wildlife habitat
eighborhood improvement
J- - - r f l
r ? I i ?rys site will also provide additional flood
J r? / / / ~? r I?Igation benefVs.
Q Primary Treatment Open Pool - intended to residence time through the use of meanders. The system O Community Perimeter Garden (landscaped swale)
remove suspended sediments, floatables, will be located at stream level and includes - Perimeter gardens will provide an
and other solids from runoff before it enters appropriate wetland plantings, micropools, and other opportunity for the community to be more
the wetland for treatment. These features features intended to maximize removal efficiencies. involved in the project by helping to plant and
include littoral zone plantings along their maintain vegetation that will beautify the area.
Low Forested.Floodolain - Sections of stream will be re-
banks to improve nutrient uptake and the Landscaped swales are V-shaped
visual appearance of the pool. routed through rehabitated wetland areas to increase depressions along the center of the garden
residence times and pollutant removal efficiencies. used to trap street runoff, which will provide
O Forebay- used adjacent to impervious areas like Low forested floodplain wetlands will include select water for vegetation and remove sediment
streets and parking lots to trap sediments plants and trees and meanders to remove first-flush and other pollutants.
and other solids before they enter the open pollutants. These features will be at or near stream
pools. These features are used primarily level and will generally include constant sources of O Stream Restoration - involves restoring the
because of their relative ease of cleaning, water. structure and function of a degraded stream
they are typically dry, dewatering over 24 to its original condition. It can be
hours following a storm event. The forebays Open Pools - serve basically the same function as the accomplished by re-establishing the
primary treatment open pools, increasing hydraulic
also rely on plantings at their perimeter and dimension, shape, and alignment of a stream,
residence time to allow for adequate nutrient uptake
in the forebay for screening and to aid in restoring vegetation, stabilizing streambanks,
sediment removal. by littoral plantings, other aquatic vegetation, and and improving wildlife habitats.
bio.processes. The pools will be up to 6' deep and
Q Wetland Treatment System - promotes nutrient will remain filled with water at all times.
and suspended solids removal by increasing CDM
Figure 4

e??SS
?wt?(
O?
b ?'..
Al

C?
3
-.J
IL
w
N
3 ?
I
?o
?l
v
L
N
? v
z

LO ayi
y L d
5 w 'o
Im L
a
LL U.
C
E.2 .2
se
N y
r W
A Y
w G1
dd
3v
Y?
m
J
n
cU
i
V
n?
l? n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
gC*4n
V H

r
t
1

t
6

01
E
S
U
b ?
? a
?n o
o
? =d
0 0
d as
0 0
co 3 M
: 2.0
?R
IL ? ?
3 °=
.c
c
00
IE N 0
O
H
O fA
V
m
a
O
CL
c
R
s
i
i
i
i
i
Appendix
A
a
00
a

9i
1 81

1 ?
_ 7c

y
= as
W
!t.
6 50
' J
t

40
W
Q
W
30

100
20
r
10
0
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10
WET BASIN VOLUME / RUNOFF VOLUME, Ve / VR
Figure AA TSS removal versus Va/Va ratio for zones 1, 2r 3 and 4.
62

ZONES 1. 2,
3,AND4

e

? !
I
1
.i
i
'00 X0

r
'
E
n
D- 6.3 HOURS
A
as HOURS
_
VR-V V.1.46

a
J
m
H
O O
N ]
O O
m (O
? 10
O N
0 O O
? O
N O
N Ul
0 O
O O
O N
° . O
? 0 0

U
=
o 0 ?

I 0 O O O O

Z O O

R '
O
O
M
ID
O
O
U0
O
N
G

I
O
V
O
m
O
N
O
N
10
O
O
O
O
O i

O
N
O
?O
O
O
?-
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
N f0
p 10
O N O
O O
m O
N O
N i0
O O
O C
C c N
° 0 0 0 0

J
O O , ? O O 0 0
O O
V ?
O O 1p
MO «I
O '
C
,. O
O? O
M O
N O
(V N
O O
O C '.
O '
O N
° ?
0 O O
0 O
0
O O
V '7
0 0 w N
O N
O
;.
. O
V O O
N O
N 10
00 O
O G
O'. N
O N
° 10
O O O
0 O
0
O .
5

? O O
d'
O O
M [O

O ?O
O N
C O
Ov O
m O
f V O
N 10 O
O c?
C
O

1 N
°
O O
c O
(Q
0 O
V?
0
O O
V 6
6 O
. .j (O
p N
O N
C ' O
V O
M O
N O
N q
O O
O c?
G 1 7 O N
° N
O O
? 0
O 0
O
O O
V '-
° O
0 t0
0
O 10
° N
O O
V O
M O
fV O
N 10
O O
O o f ?
O 0

I N
° N
O O
' O
6 O
0

m O O
V 0
p 0
. 10
O 10
O N
O O
Ov O O
N O
N N
c; O
O o N
O, O N
° 10
O O O
0 O
0

m E
O

E 10

° O
x1 10
O O O O
Ill W

O O
aD O
O O
C'1 O
CI N
O N
O N: O
O V;

O O
O

N O
N

O O
O 10
a0

O O
W

O
O X O
?
?
:BE E o 0 0 $ o` o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 o

E
O 'q
O O
Qi 11
O 0
y O O
th m
O G
a O O
N O
N N
O r
O r
O O
O O
O u?
. O
0 0

0 0

0
J O 0
X
m I
.

' E

O 0 0

N 0

O $ o o

O N: --{ 0 0 0

N 0

N 0

O o

O o

O ,.i
f
ii m

Q o in o 0
Lq 0
C4
N p O M a O O O O

"
c
m
C
m
L

L m
'?
C
m
C
LL:
".
1
?
m
C
m
C
m
C'.
m
L
m
L
m
C
m
{
m
C
m
C
O
c O
5 C
? - O
c m
a m
a O
c O
c O
c C O C C O
c O
c O
c

.N
0
3
I
aN
r-
c
m mW
w
?i w
'w
m
^' m
m

O

>

C
c
O
m
m al ul
((300
C
m

I

W

C

>

C
m

'" Q
3 _
E OI C
D C
m a
C
L m
m U
t V ? N i
m .M
E m ,
b U
O d C
f0 C?
(0
m
0 N
N m
al m "L° > a a 3 3 c
rn m
m o
`
m oa
`
r
L°
°
o w
p o
O c
N j c
VO „.
y o
O W e
L ° c
OI y - m
O ' °
d N -'
N O E c
O O o a
O O o N
O a o
p
Y 9
_ c
N?
CW
03
: m
N
.. ;N m e o.?

o c a

o mm

m o E?

a Eo

=
o
'
'u
E
' O
T-i E
1
y?
nm
c
3
?
m
Eq
;;
v
3

LL
o o
J E
a
C
y
J
m
U1
m
? d
m m
m
?- d
m y
H
x o-
W m
?
K ? _
?
LL ?
0
?
LL A
0 0
LL.,
N
C U
o. o
7 E
m
? c°
C
C m
J

-
I aa1 i
U
d O N Z N N > O W W Z Z W
W ¢ U' W N -j .
- 5
V
u
g
v
Q
°n
Q
v
C
LL
4

Q •- o o ci v° m
7

Z O

? M
O
O p
O
O O 1 O
D I ? O
?
O f0 N 10
l O O
U
J ° 0
O 0
O 0
? ov M
O M ? N O O

J
? O
O O
O O
O Oy. M
O M ? p O O
? O O

O O
` M O 00
O O
? < O
M
O O i
?
O
p t0
m ` N
p. O O
N
K ' O
O O
O O'

I I Q M
O f0 10 10 O O

o 0
Op m N O O O

O O

? ?
E V Q
m
w E o
N 0
°

° E c
i i
n
a c
E

O O O
N
V C
I
J

v E
7 0 0

F
C

C

?

?

?
m
C ?

U LL LL

W

O
C
a
3
c a
L
> U
N?
O
m

L
O

L
U
?4 'C m a m
o` 3 3
Q o'
L a
p c
? c ?
O N ? o
g a 0
? H
m e
? c m m d? d o
? N ?c K `o F m Fm- umi
y

E

?

j
I
UL
[
X
¢

Z

a j
J in
F
N Z ? d d
C n N C
U
m ?
a a
m ?
m E
E c o
o o u
U
t L ? N
W W m m
J J ? S
J J ? _
O W Nat G
? ?OWmnlo
? o
a m
o.
O
m O 6
o. m
Q U N Q
N U N ? b
N N O N N
A o 0 0
o 6 a 5 d
3 R K K K
m ? N N V
m
Y
u
c
cV
i
0
V

N
a
W
/J
W
H
0 0 0 0 0
d ap .- O I? ?
m
` L

CL
0
cm
0)
C
n r-
cc0 LO
N
CO (O Ln M N
tmm N N
R i *0 L
LL d
> _
a
?-
_ O
C

x
d
U) O
N 'f
?
r- (3) ti
LO
In
4)
L ,a
C6
CO
6
d
N

0) V

O O a
)
r
d
0) LO
(fl (3)
OR O
- ?Y
(O
M
CD ? ti I-- LO N

0) N
L
d w

> G
G
Q
0 0 0 0 0
a)
V OD O
?- N
M CO
=
C
L
(?
CD
a
o
04
I- tl-
V CN
OO OD
_
O
N
co
cfl

?ti

Sri

N
N LL V)
i L

> C
?
Q
CP O
y
L
N O
N ?
? I
? r
V rn
I?
O d CO CO In N
= H

a a
c

C1 LO
(0 6i
Oo O
T7 (.0
OR On
Vp

i ti tc j N
CD 7
tm N
c
`m l
C
a)
>
a
J

U) >, > O

LL M :3

E
Z
H
N ' ? '
N

V6
w
O
z
a)
a)
0
(0
N
N
cl
7
a)
rn
N
t
V)
p )
U
M
? N
cu N
V-
? O
O .?
0 m
a)
a) "
CL
M c
E U Q
y
a) L
O V)
N C d)
co O
r
a rnU
G
a) O
C U a)
O.S N
-0
a)
a)
m
N
a) m
: O
N 3
a) U
0
3 LL
E `o
3 M y-
O a) (n
? N a)
m rn
rnrn
O
in LL 2
? N M
0
co
X
Z
G
C
J
cl
0

u

1

C

M
Q
W
J
m
H
--
E - o: O:O€O:oo:'•o:
oioo:oioioio:o:
o
a3 E .
CD i q i (O : (O : CO : CO : CO : (O :O
v?0 C
- 04 L? N:N:N:N:N:N L?
a) ' i0E ' f ' i ' EO
U. O ? O:O:0:0:0:0:Oi0i0
() O:-:O:Oi0i0:O:O:-
.. Co : :0 : (O : CO : CO : CO : 0 :

O?Oi0?Oi0i0E0iOc0
0:0:O:O:Oi0i010:0
O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O
0:! O 0:: :0 :0:; 0:: O
U
-a v c v v v'v€v€v:
as rn 0:0 i0i0s0:Oio:o:o
d CD :o:o:o:o:o:CD
J 6i0:0i0:O:OO:O:o
N ^ CO : s :Co: a? aC) aD of ? of 00
CL o:O:O:O:o:o:oio:0
O E O'O `O `O:O `O `O `O `O
OOOi00000?0
U
0 C COE-'(O:(O CO (O:(Oi(D: -
c a) o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o
N E o;o;o:o@o:o:o@o o
0:o:0:0`0:o:o:oio
?
? E v:v:vv
ivivivgviv

m E 0;0;0:0:0:0:0:0:0

- o:LO:0:0:0:0:0:0:LO

o E €oo
?-- Lq: :(?iu?:(ni(O:(n:Lo
o€ €0€00':00€0

y 01 O:OiO O:0:O:0i0i0
p E OOO;O;OO;OOO
LO: Lofu?)€LO'Losu-)€Ln
a o: o:o:o:0:oi
- 0:04?0;0;0;0;0 0:N
« m i:0:?:
O E ?}':C3:,T:
H O: iCD:O:O:O?O:(D?
o : i0 :o i O :O :o
sa)': :?
:oi
: C:

: E:
c
E
Q:=: Q:-:

J '•CiNi???(6:
N
?
O
OE
S
E i
U:•- i
•
(ni of
? • fn : (D :
E€?€m'-:3
E€U)iLO:a)iU:U:C::3m
Oia)iiV
Q
o
U'
?
\
C
i
i
••
i
E
U€U:
i:< C,4 7d-:O
L: LOE
?
: a)i (ni0
CAINiNiNiL
J i A ip iO i O :2 : C :J :?
a)
a)
C
0
F-
s
O C
Z O
N
(n C
C U
`0 3
o
o
CD m
c
rn ?
rn w
C
o a)
a a)
E
Ca U
cn
.i
m Q
a) E
`m a)
fn
a
oO
?
> C
a O
E a
a)
o
m
.Lm
a)
V..
a)
N
E a)
O a
a)
o a
U O
U N
w a
O
(Q w
0 0..
m ?
Z (1
c6 c
fQ
a)
N U
O .C
O
rn rn
C C
O O
U N
C
00 U U
Z -, N
0
00
U
.u.
E
U
V

L

0

1

Q
W
J
m
F-
M M O N N
O
CA
E O CD 0

7 0 O
E

C
O
O CD to
N
M .-- co
m
co
a) N V e-
r
`
CD CV 06 a-
O
N N M 0 0
O
O E
X

O co
Q'
w
?
W rn o o M
(? CA CA o v co co
co M r O V O O O
N c r N 0 0
CT CO
? a)

E
O
w
'NO co O ?- O O N r`
CO N O O V: CD M
J N v
N
0

O .
- (D
00
(6
a)
Q
r-
M M (0 CD
O
M
q:
V C
O
CO (D
N M
M
In fn N Cj 0 0 0+
N O O
(A C O O O O N

E N

O U
o -

O (n tt o N Cl) CA to N LO N I- O .-
I- f- I- CO N M O V' r- CO
(n C14 NV) O O N O O O O t
o O O W
c
a N ? ?
O F-
? Z
U-
CL
(n
_ M I N N C (C) O N f-- to r
<
C
(` LO O
(? 'i V M N M (2
t
o O O O N
rn O
? (6 O ?
C
D
?
m j

C
O fl- (D M (0 [t O co M r- r- CT
O
'

Q _
r- M N M O V
r- CO
- N LO o o ~ N C:) 0 0 0+
4 3 0 06 v
E AD ?
>
Q C
a
U
m m
m m m m
o
•E (
u
2 m
??? n n n
n
a
c
n.
?g .
0
E
SO
SO
oU
U) m
c
p E
^
O CO

oo?of
co
o O F- L O CU :j
Z (
aH m e m
m 2
a) m
U) -o o `o o p °T' E
m a? rnm0 o
S a m
U
L O N
E O
«. E CO
U 7
2 ?U
E(na.> Z a).
0
-c
-ja
m i
m
?
a
0
?
o u
s
a
Co -
mi
0 L)
i c U
N O
O
U p p ._ p ._ L 0 0 l6 0
Q(n f-F-0 Hm0N0-j L) LL
(o
N
(0
a)
t
E2
a)
3
0
w
N
m
T
U
7
N
a)
`m
0
a
a)
r
U
C_
"O
N
C
N
n
a)
N
N
Cll
t
0
E
w ?
z

X
c
CJ
D
v

TABLE A-5
¦ ESTIMATED REMOVAL

FOR ALTERNATIVES
Al ternative 2
Alternative 1 Extended Dry Wet Alternative 3
Constituent Wet Detention Detention Detention Total Wet Detention
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 63% 31% 460% 63% 73%
Total Phosphorus (TP) 16% 8% 10% 16% 20%
Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) 22% 0% 14% 14% 28%
Total Nitrogen (TN) 7% 2% 4% 6% 9%
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOO) 16% 8% 9% 16% 18°/
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 16% 8% 9% 16% 18%
Zinc 32% 16% 20% 32% 37%
Copper 43% 19% 29% 43% 50%
Lead 55% 27% 39% 56% 64%
Cadmium 55% 27% 39% 56% 64%
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 73% 12% 59% 64% 79%
NOTES:
1. Wet detention TSS removal calculated based on work by Driscoll.
2. Wet detention total N and total P removal based on equations from Walker.
3. Wet detention dissolved P and bacteria removal is based on assumed first order loss rate and average residence i
4. Wet detention removal for other constituents is estimated as follows:
' CP = C14 (TPlT14 * C90/C14) + ( DP/D14 * (1 - C90/C14))
where
CP = constituent removal efficiency for proposed wet detention system
C14 = constituent removal efficiency for wet detention with 14-day residence time
TP = TSS removal efficiency for proposed wet detention system
T14 = TSS removal efficiency for wet detention with 14-day residence time
C90 = constituent removal efficiency for extended dry detention with 90% capture
DP = dissolved P removal efficiency for proposed wet detention system
D14 = dissolved P removal efficiency for wet detention with 14-day residence time
' 5. Extended dry detention removal for all constituents is estimated as follows:
CX = PCTCL90 * C90
' where
CX = constituent removal efficiency for proposed extended dry detention system
PCTC = percent capture/treatment of constituent in the extended detention system
C90 = constituent removal efficiency for extended dry detention with 90% capture
I
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
11/12/2001

TABLE A-6 '

HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 1 Planning Level Constru ction Cost Estimate

ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Site Preparation. Work
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Erosion Control 10 AC $ 5,000 $ 50,000
2 Fine Grading 6,570 CY $ 2.50 $ 16,400
3 Dewatering Operations Allowance 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Excavation of Open Pools 3, 4, and 5, Wetland, Forebay 2 36,140 CY $ 1.50 $ 54,200
5 Excavation of Open Pool No. 1 6,580 CY $ 1.50 $ 9,900
6 Excavation of Forebay No. 1 440 CY $ 1.50 $ 700
7 Excavation of Open Pool No. 2 2,690 CY $ 1.50 $ 4,000
8 Excavation of Forebay No. 3 West of Wellingford 1,890 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,800
9 Excavation of Forebay No. 4 West of Wellingford 1,360 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,000
10 Excavation of Open Pool No. 6 West of Wellingford 16,550 CY $ 1.50 $ 24,800
11 Rock Excavation Allowance (Assumed None) - CY $ 40.00 $ -
12 Hauling (15 Percent Soil Expansion) 75,498 CY $ 5.00 $ 377,500
13 Tipping Fee (Assumed None) CY $ 10.00 $
14 Rip Rap, Class 1, 24" Thick 80 SY $ 38 $ 3,000
15 Filter Fabric, Type 2 (For Access Areas) 5,295 SY $ 2 $ 10,600
16 Seeding & Mulching 15,880 SY $ 2 $ 31,800
17 Remove Existing 12" Pipe (Sanitary Sewer) 60 LF $ 15 $ 900
18 Replace Existing 12" Sewer with Elevated Crossings 60 LF $ 18 $ 1,100
19 Supports (etc.) Associated with Aerials 2 EA $ 5,000 $ 10,000
' 20 Stormwater Weirs 10 EA $ 2,500 $ 25,000
21 Diversion Structures 3 EA $ 2,500 $ 7,500
22 18" RCP, Class III 435 LF $ 100 $ 43,500

Wetland Plantings Subtotal: $ 681,000
23 Install Topsoil & Grade to Uniform Depth (9-Inches) 2,750 CY $ 10.00 $ 27,500
24 Wetland Channel Plants (1.0' O.C.) 49,500 EA $ 2.75 $ 136,100
25 Wetland Ridge Plants (1.0'0.C.) 49,500 EA $ 2.25 $ 111,400
26 Plant Delivery Surcharge (10 percent) 1 LS $ 24,750 $ 24,800
27 Hand/Fine Grading Channels 2,750 CY $ 5 $ 13,800
Subtotal: $ 314,000
' Landscape/Neighborhood Garden Areas
28 Mulch for Planting (4-Inches) 538 CY $ 17 $ 9,100
29 Miscellaneous Trees (3gal to 5gal containers) (4'0.C.) 681 EA $ 30 $ 20,400
30 Miscellaneous Shrubs (3'0.C.) 1210 EA $ 20 $ 24,200
1 Subtotal: $ 54,000
Channel Restoration
31 Bank Stabilization 800 CY $ 10 $ 8,000
32 Riparian Corridor Planting 0.50 AC $ 5,000 $ 2,500
Subtotal: $ 11,000
Total: $ 1,060,000
' '
s
33 Allow for Division 01 and the General Contractor 15% % $ 159,000 $ 159,000
Overhead and Profit
33 Contingency 25% % $ 305,000 $ 305,000
34 Escalation to the Midpoint of Construction 3% % $ 46,000 $ 46,000
(Allow 1 year at 3% per year
Total Construction: $ 1,570,000
Outside Engineering, Surveying and Geotechnical: $ 236,000
' Grand Total: $ 1,806,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11/12/2001

TABLE A-7 •

HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Weilingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 1b Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate

ITEM DESCRIPTION OTY. UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Site Preparation Work
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Erosion Control 10 AC $ 5,000 $ 50,000
' 2 Fine Grading 6,570 CY $ 2.50 $ 16,400
3 Dewatering Operations Allowance 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Excavation of Open Pools 3, 4, and 5, Wetland, Forebay 2 44,300 CY $ 1.50 $ 66,500
5 Excavation of Open Pool No. 1 6,580 CY $ 1.50 $ 9,900
6 Excavation of Forebay No. 1 440 CY $ 1.50 $ 700
7 Excavation of Open Pool No. 2 2,690 CY $ 1.50 $ 4,000
8 Excavation of Forebay No. 3 West of Wellingford 1,890 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,800
' 9 Excavation of Forebay No. 4 West of Wellingford 1,360 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,000
10 Excavation of Open Pool No. 6 West of Wellingford 16,550 CY $ 1.50 $ 24,800
11 Rock Excavation Allowance (Assumed None) - CY $ 40.00 $ -
12 Hauling (15 Percent Soil Expansion) 84,882 CY $ 5.00 $ 424,400
13 Tipping Fee (Assumed None) CY $ 10.00 $
14 Rip Rap, Class 1, 24" Thick 80 SY $ 38 $ 3,000
15 Filter Fabric, Type 2 (For Access Areas) 5,295 SY $ 2 $ 10,600
16 Seeding & Mulching 15,880 SY $ 2 $ 31,800
17 Remove Existing 12" Pipe (Sanitary Sewer) 60 LF $ 15 $ 900
18 Replace Existing 12" Sewer with Elevated Crossings 60 LF $ 18 $ 1,100
19 Supports (etc.) Associated with Aerials 2 EA $ 5,000 $ 10,000
' 20 Stormwater Weirs 6 EA $ 2,500 $ 15,000
21 Diversion Structures 3 EA $ 2,500 $ 7,500
22 18" RCP, Class III 435 LF $ 100 $ 43,500
'
Wetland Plantings Subtotal: $ 730,000
23 Install Topsoil & Grade to Uniform Depth (9-Inches) 2,250 CY $ 10.00 $ 22,500
24 Wetland Channel Plants (1.0' O.C.) 40,500 EA $ 2.75 $ 111,400
25 Wetland Ridge Plants (1.0'0.C.) 40,500 EA $ 2.25 $ 91,100
' 26 Plant Delivery Surcharge (10 percent) 1 LS $ 20,250 $ 20,300
27 Hand/Fine Grading Channels 2,250 CY $ 5 $ 11,300
_ Subtotal: $ 257,000
' Landscape/Neighborhood Garden Areas
28 Mulch for Planting (4-Inches) 538 CY $ 17 $ 9,100
29 Miscellaneous Trees (3gal to 5gal containers) (4' O.C.) 681 EA $ 30 $ 20,400
30 Miscellaneous Shrubs (3' O.C.) 1210 EA $ 20 $ 24,200
' Subtotal: $ 54,000
Channel Restoration
31 Bank Stabilization 800 CY $ 10 $ 8,000
32 Riparian Corridor Planting 0.50 AC $ 5,000 $ 2,500
' Subtotal: $ 11,000
Total: $ 1,052,000
'
s
33 Allow for Division 01 and the General Contractor 15% % $ 158,000 $ 158,000
Overhead and Profit
33 Contingency 25% % $ 303,000 $ 303,000
34 Escalation to the Midpoint of Construction 3% % $ 45,000 $ 45,000
(Allow 1 year at 3% per year)
Total Con struction: $ 1,558,000
Outside Engineering, Surveying and Geotechnical: . $ 234,000
' Grand Total: $ 1,792,000

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11/12/2001

TABLE A-8

HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
' Phase 1 of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 2 Planning Level Constru ction Cost Estimate
'
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Site Preparation Work
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Erosion Control 10 AC $ 5,000 $ 50,000
' 2 Fine Grading 6,570 CY $ 2.50 $ 16,400
3 Dewatering Operations Allowance 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Excavation of Open Pools 3, 4, and 5, Wetland, Forebay 2 33,220 CY $ 1.50 $ 49,800
5 Excavation of Open Pool No. 1 4,920 CY $ 1.50 $ 7,400
6 Excavation of Forebay No. 1 440 CY $ 1.50 $ 700
7 Excavation of Open Pool No. 2 1,990 CY $ 1.50 $ 3,000
8 Excavation of Forebay No. 3 West of Wellingford 1,890 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,800
' 9 Excavation of Forebay No. 4 West of Wellingford 1,360 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,000
10 Excavation of Open Pool No. 6 West of Wellingford 10,791 CY $ 1.50 $ 16,200
11 Rock Excavation Allowance (Assumed None) - CY $ 40.00 $ -
12 Hauling (15 Percent Soil Expansion) 62,803 CY $ 5.00 $ 314,000
' 13 Tipping Fee (Assumed None) CY $ 10.00 $
14 Rip Rap, Class 1, 24" Thick 80 SY $ 38 $ 3,000
15 Filter Fabric, Type 2 (For Access Areas) 5,295 SY $ 2 $ 10,600
16 Seeding & Mulching 15,880 SY $ 2 $ 31,800
17 Remove Existing 12" Pipe (Sanitary Sewer) 60 LF $ 15 $ 900
18 Replace Existing 12" Sewer with Elevated Crossings 60 LF $ 18 $ 1,100
19 Supports (etc.) Associated with Aerials 2 EA $ 5,000 $ 10,000
20 Stormwater Weirs 10 EA $ 2,500 $ 25,000
21 Diversion Structures 3 EA $ 2,500 $ 7,500
22 18" RCP, Class III 435 LF $ 100 $ 43,500
'
Wetland Plantings Subtotal: $ 601,000
23 Install Topsoil & Grade to Uniform Depth (9-Inches) 1,306 CY $ 10.00 $ 13,100
24 Wetland Channel Plants (1.0'0.C.) 23,500 EA $ 2.75 $ 64,600
25 Wetland Ridge Plants (1.0'0.C.) 23,500 EA $ 2.25 $ 52,900
' 26 Plant Delivery Surcharge (10 percent) 1 LS $ 11,750 $ 11,800
27 Hand/Fine Grading Channels 1,306 CY $ 5 $ 6,500
Subtotal: $ 149,000
Landscape/Neighborhood Garden Areas
28 Mulch for Planting (4-Inches) 538 CY $ 17 $ 9,100
29 Miscellaneous Trees (3gal to 5gal containers) (4' O.C.) 681 EA $ 30 $ 20,400
30 Miscellaneous Shrubs (3' O.C.) 1210 EA $ 20 $ 24,200
Subtotal: $ 54,000
Channel Restoration
31 Bank Stabilization 800 CY $ 10 $ 8,000
32 Riparian Corridor Planting 0.50 AC $ 5,000 $ 2,500
Subtotal: $ 11,000
Total: $ 815,000
'
s
33 Allow for Division 01 and the General Contractor 15% % $ 122,000 $ 122,000
Overhead and Profit
33 Contingency 25% % $ 234,000 $ 234,000
34 Escalation to the Midpoint of Construction 3% % $ 35,000 $ 35,000
(Allow 1 year at 3% per year)
Total Construction: $ 1,206,000
Outside Engineering, Surveying and Geotechnical: $ 181,000
Grand Total: $ 1,387,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11/12/2001
q
II
TABLE A-9
HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration;
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative

0
Alternative 3 Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Site Preparation Work
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Erosion Control 10 AC $ 5,000 $ 50,000
2 Fine Grading 6,570 CY $ 2.50 $ 16,400
3 Dewatering Operations Allowance 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Excavation of Wetland No. 1 1,600 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,400
5 Excavation of Wetland No. 2 2,200 CY $ 1.50 $ 3,300
6 Excavation of Open Pool No. 1 70,000 CY $ 1.50 $ 105,000
7 Excavation of Open Pool No. 2 2,690 CY $ 1.50 $ 4,000
8 Excavation of Forebay No. 1 1,200 CY $ 1.50 $ 1,800
9 Excavation of Forebay No. 2 1,990 CY $ 1.50 $ 3,000
10 Excavation of Forebay No. 3 1,890 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,800
11 Excavation of Forebay No. 4 1,360 CY $ 1.50 $ 2,000
12 Rock Excavation Allowance (Assumed None) - CY $ 40.00 $ -
13 Hauling (15 Percent Soil Expansion) 95,370 CY $ 5.00 $ 476,800
14 Tipping Fee (Assumed None) - CY $ 10.00 $ -
15 Rip Rap, Class 1, 24" Thick 80 SY $ 38 $ 3,000
16 Filter Fabric, Type 2 (For Access Areas) 5,295 SY $ 2 $ 10,600
17 Seeding & Mulching 15,880 SY $ 2 $ 31,800
18 Sanitary Sewer Relocation 1 LS $ 286,000 $ 286,000
19 Stormwater Weirs 1 EA $ 2,500 $ 2,500
20 Diversion Structures 3 EA $ 2,500 $ 7,500
21 18" RCP, Class 111 200 LF $ 100 $ 20,000
Subtotal: $ 1,034,000
Wetland Plantings
22 Install Topsoil & Grade to Uniform Depth (9-Inches) 2,417 CY $ 10.00 $ 24,200
23 Wetland Channel Plants (1.0' O.C.) 43,500 EA $ 2.75 $ 119,600
24 Wetland Ridge Plants (1.0' O.C.) 43,500 EA $ 2.25 $ 97,900
25 Plant Delivery Surcharge (10 percent) 1 LS $ 21,750 $ 21,800
26 Hand/Fine Grading Channels 2,417 CY $ 5 $ 12,100
Subtotal: $ 276,000
Landscape/Neighborhood Garden Areas
27 Mulch for Planting (4-Inches) 538 CY $ 17 $ 9,100
28 Miscellaneous Trees (3gal to 5gal containers) (4' O.C.) 953 EA $ 30 $ 28,600
29 Miscellaneous Shrubs (3' O.C.) 1694 EA $ 20 $ 33,900
Subtotal: $ 72,000
Channel Restoration
30 Soil Bio-Engineering 1,100 LF $ 150 $ 165,000
Subtotal: $ 165,000
Total: $ 1,547,000
31 Allow for Division 01 and the General Contractor's 15% % $ 232,000 $ 232,000
Overhead and Profit
31 Contingency 25% % $ 445,000 $ 445,000
32 Escalation to the Midpoint of Construction 3% % $ 67,000 $ 67,000
(Allow 1 year at 3% per year)
Total Construction: $ 2,291,000
Outside Engineering, Surveyin g and Geotechnical: $ 344,000
Grand Total: $ 2,635,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11/12/2001

00
C7d

Appe
ndix
B

Parameter Description Units LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
Factor for erosion reduction by
erosion control practices
SMPF SMPF = 1 means no controls) none 1.0 1.0__ __1.0_ 1.0--- --- 10_ ___1.0__ __10--- --- 1.0__ __1_0__
Coefficient in soil detachment
KRER equation complex -0.09-- - 0.09 --
_ _0_.09_
--- 0.09
0.09 _
0.09_ _
0.09 -
0.09---
--- 0.09--
--0.09--
Exponent in soil detachment
JRER equation complex 1.5

------- 1.5

- 1.5 1.5 15 1_5___ --15- ___1.5 __ 1.5
-------
Fraction by which detached
sediment decreases as a result
AFFIX of soil compaction 1/day 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 __0.01--- --- 0.01__ __0.01
Fraction of land surface
shielded from erosion by
COVER rainfall none 0.85_- 0.9
------ 0.85 0.85
-------- 0.85
------- 0.85
-------- 0.85
------- 0.85
-------- 0.9
--------
Rate of atmospheric sediment
NVSI deposition lb/ac/day 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1
i
Coefficient in the detached
KSER sediment washoff equation complex _ _ 0.3 _ 0.3... ... 0.5 0.4
- --- _ 0.5 _
- -- _ 0.3_
-- 0.3
--- 0.3
----- 0.3
------
Exponent in the detached
JSER sediment washoff equation complex 0.8 _ 0.8-
-- _ _ 0.8 _
--- 0.8
--- --- 0.8
--- 0.8
--- 0.8
--- 08 _
-- 0.8
--------
Coefficient in the matrix soil
KGER scour equation com lex --- 0 ---
- --- 0.0 ---
-- -- 0.0
----- -0.0 ---
---- --- 0.0-- ___0.0 -_ - _ 0_0--- --- 0.0 ---
-- --- 0_ -
Exponent in the matrix soil
JGER scour equation complex 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
IMPERVIOUS AREA PARAMETERS

Parameter Description Units LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
Coefficient in the solids washoff
KEIM equation complex ___ 0.1 ________ _020 _ _ 0.15 0.20 0.10_
10
-01 .1
_ 00
--------
Exponent in the solids washoff
JEIM equation complex 2.7
------- 2.7 _____ 2.7 ...... 2.7
2.7
_ 2.7
------ 2.7
_------
Rate at which solids are placed
ACCSDP on land surface tons/arJday -_ 0.01 -- ----
- ----- 0.02
--- ____0.M .____0.02 ___ 0.01 ..... 0.01 ___ 0.01 ------
Fraction of solids storage
removed each day when there
REMSDP is no runoff none 0.0951 1 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095

Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space1>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residentiallapartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB WoodsBrush

11

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA

L
1 1 LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND WW//BB
-
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES
_--
----- YES
___
---- YES
----
---- YES
__
---- YES
- ... YES
------
.....
---------d --F-l--w--? -
Overlano -N -O- - -_ NO___ _NO -- lqd --- NO NO NO NO NO NO
Interflow. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
_
_
Groundwater?
------
---- YES
-_-----_- _
YES
- -----__- _
YES
- ---- __- YES__
-__---- - YES
---------- YES
--------_- YES
-- -------- YES
----------- YES _
-__-----
------
Parameter
s:
SQO 0
--------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
-----------
-----------------
POTFW -
---------
----------
------..
.. ---------
-----------
----------
_P;.6
-------
Dec _ ----------
2.5E+11 ----------
9.0E+10 ----------
3.8E+11 -
3.2E+11
---------- 3.8E+11_
- _ 2.5E+11- 4.0E+10
----------- 4.0E+10
---------- 9.0E+10
----------
-- -- -
-------------
Mar - Ma -----------
2.5E+11 -----------
2.2E+11 ----------
8.7E+11 5.5E+11
---------- 8.7E+11
---------- 2.5E+11
----------- 7.0E+10
----------- 7.0E+10
----------- 2.2E+11
-----------
--------------
Jun-Aug
_ ----------
9.9E+11 _
-
------ ----------
1_8E+12-
---- ----------
7.4E+12
------ _4.2E+12_ _7.4E+12_
9.9E+11
-----------
1.9E+12
-----------
1.9E+12
-----------
1.8E+12_
-- --
---
Sep _ Nov -
-
9.9E+11
------ 4.4E+11
---------- 1.9E+12
---------- 1.5E+12
---------- 1.9E+12_ _ 9.9E+11_ _ 2.8E+11
----- 2.8E+11
----- 4.4E+11
----------
_ __
-
IMPLNO
----
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES
- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
-----------
----------
-- - -----------
Overlan-d Flow?
------------ ----------
NO
---------- ----------
---------- ----------
NO
---------- --------
-
NO
---------- NO
----------- NO
----------- NO
----------- NO
-----------
----------
-----
Parameters:
SQO 0
-
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
-----------
----------
-----------------
POTFW --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -------- --- ----------
._..
----
Dec -Feb
----------
2.5E+11
----------
3.80E+11
3.2E+11
3.8E+11_
2.5E+11
4E+10 _ _
4.00E+10
_ _ _ _
Mar-lula 2.5E+11 _ _ _ _ _ _
- 8.70E+11 5.5E+11
-
---- 8.7E+11
..--
----.
- 2.5E+11
- -------- 7E+10
----------- 7.00E+10
--------- -----------
--------------
Jun : Aug -- -------
9.9E+11 ----------
_ ______
-- ----------
7.40E+12
---------- ----
-
4.2E+12_
- 4E
12
_7_+_ 9.9E+11
---------- 1.9E+12
----------- 1.90E+12
----------
----------
_
Se - No ----------
9.9E+11 1.90E+12 1.5E+12 1.9E+12 9.9E+11 2.8E+11 2.80E+11
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
CADMIUM

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
---
-----------------
Overland Flow? ----------
YES ----------
NO ----------
NO NO
-
-
-
-
NO
-----------
YES
----------- YES._
----- YES
---------- NO
----------
.
------------------
Interflow? .__
---
YES ----------
YES ----------
YES ---
-
-
-
-
YE
-
- - ES
---------- YES
--------... YES
....------- YES
---------- YES
---------
-----------------
Groundwater?
-
-
-- --------
YES
---------- ----------
YES
---------- ----------
YES
---------- - -
---
YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------•-
-
-
Parameters:
SQO 0.00009 0 0 0 0 0.00009 0.00007
--
------- 0.00007
---------- 0
-- - -
- -
POTFW ----------
0.007 ----------
0.004 ----------
0.006 ----------
0.006
-
- ----------
0.006
-----
---- -----------
0.007
--
----- -
0.02
---------- 0.02
---------- 0.00
----------
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 -------
-
0 -
0 ---
-
0 0
------- 0
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
ACQOP ----- - --
0.00003 ----------
0 ----- -----
0 ---- -- --
0 ---- -----
0 -----------
0.00003 -- -
0.000023 0.000023 0
SQOLIM
---
----------
- 0.0003 0.0-- _0.---- 0_
-----
WSQOP ----------
0.5
--
----
- - ----
0
---------- -- -
0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0
----------
--------•-------- -
-
-
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES__ ___YES___ --YES __ _ YES--
----------
--.
-
--- -----Overland Flow?
---------- _
-_
YES
----------
---------- __
__
-
NO
---------- ___
_
NO
---------- --
NO
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
Parameters:
SQO .00024
0 0

--- 0

----------- 0

----------- 0.00024

----------- 0.00007

----------- _ 0.00007 _ ____ _
_ - • -
-----------------
POTFW _
_
_
- - -
0.07 ---------- -------
0.26 0.20 0.26
- 0.07
--
------- 0.13
---------- 0.13
----------
----------
-----------------
ACOOP --- ---
0.00008 ---------- --- ---
0 ----------
0 --------
-
0 -
-
0.00008 0.00023 0.00023
SQOLIM 0.0008 0

- 0

----------
0
----------
0.0008
--
---------
0.0023
----------
0.0023
----------

----------
------------------
WSQOP ----------
0.5 ---------- --
-------
0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

Li

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
COPPER

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:,
Sediment? YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES NO
Flow.
Overland YES YES YES YES YES
----- ___YES___ __ YES___ __ YES___ _ YES___
_
_
_
Interflow? ----------
YES ___
--
YES ___
--
YES ----------
YES
- __
-
YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
------- -- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------------
Groundwater?
-
------------- ----------
YES
---------- ----------
YES
---------- ----------
YES
---------- -----
----
YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
--
-
Parameters:
SOO 0.0003 0 0 0 0 __ __0.0003 0.00021_ _0.00021_ ____0 _-
POTFW __
0.018 0.03
-
-
- __
0.06
---------- __
___
0.06
---------- _
- 0.06
---------- 0.018
----------- 0.06
---------- 0.06
---------- 0.03
----------
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----
--
-
0 0 0 0
-
--
--- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
- - - ----
ACQOP _
_
--------
0.0001 ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 --
-
-
0
------
- 0.0001
----------- 0.00007
---------- 0.00007
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
0:001 ----------
0 ----- -----
0 ----------
0
---- --
-
0
---------- - 0.001
- - 0.0007
---------- 0.0007
---------- 0
----------
____
-__
WSQOP ___
_
0.5
--
------ _
---------
0
---------- --_
- ----
0
---------- -
--
0
---------- 0
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
IMPLND -
-
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES YES___ YES
- --- YES
----------
----------
_
Overland Flow?
-
- ___
YES
---------- _
---------
---------- - --
NO
---------- __
_
--
NO
---------- -_
NO
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
--------------
-
Parameters:
SQO 0.00066 0
-
- 0
----------- 0
----------- _ 0.00066 _
--------- 0.00021
----------- 0.00021
----------
----------
-----------------
POTFW _
-
0.2 _
--------- ------
--
1.6 1.2
-------- 1.6
---- -----
- 0.2
----------

- 0.4
----------

-
'- 0.4
----------
----------
-----------------
ACQOP ----------
0.00022 ----------
--
- ----------
0
- ---- ---
0
---------- 0
---------- :00022
_ 6.66022
----- 0.00007
0.00007
---------- 0.00007
----------
----------
----
----
SQOLIM ----------
0.0022 ------
- 0 0
-- 0
---------- 0.0022
------
----- 0.0007
---------- 0.0007
------- --
---------
-----------------
WSQOP --- ------
0 ---------- ---- - ----
0 ----
---
0 0 0 0 0
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SOOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM
Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush
1

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
LEAD
F_- I
LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND WB
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES
...... YES
........... YES
........... YES
........... YES
---------- YES
......----
- ...............
Overland Flow. ...........
YES ...........
NO
- ...........
NO
---------- .....
NO
---
----
--- NO
------
--- YES___
___ YES--_
__ YES
---
------ NO

----------

-- --------- i---
I
nte
--- YE----S ---
--- Y---
ES ---
YES
Y
ES
---
---
YES

---
--- YES

...
--- YES

....
----
---
YES
-------
--.
YES
-------
---
.....
-
---------
-
Groundwatedwater
------------ --
YES --
----------
--- YES ---
---------- ---
-
--- YES ....
----------
...
YES S
----------
YES YES
----------
YES YES
-----------
YES
----------
YES
----------
YES
----------
Parameters:
SQO .0003
0 0 0 0 _0
__
-- 0.0003
__ 0.00018- _0.00018_
0
----------
OTFW ___
_
0.02 _
6.6Y ___
0.05 0.05 ---
------- __
0.05
--
---------- 0.02
----------- 0.06
---------- 0.06
---------- 0.07
----------
-----------------
POTFS
- ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0
----- ----- ---
0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
-----
-----------
ACQOP ----------
0.0001 ----------
0 0 0 0
---------- 0
-------
--- 0.00006
----------- 0.00006
---------- 0
----------
------------- -
0
0
0
--
6
.001
-
--
0.0006
---
0.0006
'--
0
..........
-__
OP-- 0.5 0
-
---- 0 ---
---------- ---- 0----
---------- _
- 0
-
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
IMPLND ---------- ----
-
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES
_
__ YES
___
----
___
YES
---- YES
__
___ YES
-__
__
----------
------------
Overland Flow? ----------
YES ---------- -
N-- _
_
_NO
NO
Y ffS
YES
YES
Parameters:
SQO 0.00075 0 0
---------
- 0
----------- _ 000075 _
--------- 0.00018
----------- 0.00018 _
-
----------
0 -2_2 ----------
1.3 -
1.3
--
--- 1.3
- ---- - ---- 0.22
- ---- ---- 0.33
- -------
- 0.33
----------
----------
-----------------
ACQOP --------- -
0.00025 ------ ---- ----------
0 - -
- -
0
-
--
-
--- 0
-----
----- 0.00025
---------
-- 00006
0.
--
-----
--- 0.00006-
--
-
-
----
-
----------
------
----- SQ-----OL-IM -- 0.0--------
025 ----------- ----- 0 ----- --
-
0
- 0
--------- 25
0.00
----------- .0
0
--
0
--------- 0
.
006
0
----
---
----------
-----------------
WSQOP ----------
0.5 ------- ----------
0 ---------
0 -
0
0.5
0.5 6.y
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
___
I j LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES NO YES
----
---- YES
---
---- YES
----
-
-- YES
---
-
-
--- YES
-
-
-
-- YES
---
--- NO
---
-------
------------------
OveFlow?
---Y--E-S ----
---Y-ES ---
NO
Nb
NO
Y
S
-
YES
YES
YES
_
_
.....
Interflow? YES YES
- YES
---------- YES
---------- _
_
YES
---------- _
_
YES
----------- _
_
_
YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
Groundwater?
-
-
- ----------
YES
___
_ --------
-
YES
__ ___ YES
___ __ YES
___ __ YES
___ _ YES
_-_ __ YES
_ ___ YES
---------- YES
----------
_
--•
-
-
-
Parameters: _
SQO 0.72
-
--
- 6
--------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0.72
----------- 0.66
----------- 0.66
---------- 6
----------
------ _-----------
POTFW ---
--
-
290 -
0 __ 350___ ___ 330___ ___ 350 __ _ _ 290
- --- _320___
-- _320
--- 0.0
----------
_____
-----
POTFS ----------
0 ___
- ----
------
0 ---
--
0 0
- -
--- ---?
- ---- --- -- -
-
-----
----------
ACQOP ---
- --
-
0.24 -- -
----
2 ---
- ----
0
------- ----
0
----------- -
- -
-
0
----------- .-
---_
---
0.24
----------- ....
-
0.22
----------- 0.22
---------- 2
----------
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
2.4 ----------
20 ---
0 _ 0____ ___-_0____ ____2.4____ 2.2 _
-- 2.2 ___
--- ___ 20 ___
__
----
WSQOP __
___
0.5 _ _
0.5
- _ _
0
----- _
0
---------- 0
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
----------
----- -----
IMPLND ---------- --- -
- -----
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES YES YES __ YES___
----------
-------
--O- -----verland Flow?
--------- ----------
YES
---------- ----------
---------- __
_
-
NO
---------- ___
----
NO
---------- __
__
-
NO
---------- ---
---
YES
----------- __
___
YES ---
------- --- YES ---
---- ----------
Parameters:
SQO 0.72 0
- 0
------- 0
---------- 0.72
----------- 0.66
---------- 0.66
----------
----------
-----------------
POTFW ----------
1600 ---------- -----
----
3500
-
- ---
_2600__
- ___3500__ ___ 1600___ __ 1600 __ __ 1600
-----
----------
-----
ACQOP _
- --
0.24 ---------- ------
-
-
0 0
---- 0
---------- 0.24
----------- 0.22
--- --- 0.22
----------
----------
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
2.4 ---------- ----------
0 ------
0 0 2.4 2.2 2.2
WSQOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (Ib constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (Ib constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush
CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
ZINC

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
n
Tr NO YES YES YES YES YES YES
---
---- NO
----------
--
---------
Interflow? -----------
YES -----------
YES _
-_-
YES -_
___
YES
------- -__
___
YES
---------- ___
---
YES
----------- ----------
YES
---------- --
-
YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
__Groundwater.
-------- ----------
_ YES___ ----------
-YES
------ --- ----------
__YES _
- ---
___YES __ ___YES__ _YES-_ _ YES
- -------- YES
---------- YES
----------
Parameters:
SQO 0.0024 0 0.0024
- 0.0024
-------- _0.0024 _
- _ _ 0.0024
-- 0.0024
---------- 0.0024
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
POTF-W --------
-5
0.2- ----------
0.10 --------
-
0.25 --
0.25
-----
0.25
----------
0.25
-----------
0.35
----------
0.35
----------
0.10
----------
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 -----
0
-- 0
------- 0

..
-------
-
- 0

..
--------- 0
-----
--
--
- 0

-----
-
--------
--
--
ACQOP ----- _-

-
0.0008 - --

----
0 ---- --------

-- 0 -----
--

-
0.0008
----

-
__0.0008 -_

------
-

.0008

.0008

0
____
SQOLIM _
-
0
.008 -..
0 ----- -
0.008__ --
--
0008
----------- 0.008
----------- 0.008
----------- 0.008
----------- ---------- ____ 0____
---- _ __
WSQOP
-
-- _
_
_
___
0.5
---------- ---------- _
0
------ --- __
0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
--------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0
----------
-------------
-
IMPLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES
_ YES
__-
--- YES
---- __ _ YES___
- YES___ ----------
___
__
Overland Flow?
-
---- __
-
YES ---
---------- ----------
--•------- _
-YES _
---------- _-_ YES
---------- YES
----------
----------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
-----------
--
Parameters:
SQO 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
--
- 0.006
----------- 0.0045
---------- 0.0045
----------
----------
-----------------
POTFW ---------- ---------- _ _
_ _ i.-4
------- --
-----
_4 4
.- 2.4-
... .

... ----- ---

.. -- 4.0
---

----------
-----------------
ACQOP ------
--
0.002 -- ---------- - ------
-_
0.002 _-- 0.002 -
0.002
---------- .002
0
----------- 0.0015
------ -- 0.0015
----------
------ ---
- --§66C --
IM t ---------
0.02 -•-------- ----------
0.02 0.02
-- 0.02 ...
-------- ... ------0.015
-- 0.015
----------
-----•----
__-
-
WSQOP _
.
0.5 ________ 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush
CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES
- YES
-
----
-- YES
--
------
• YES
---------- YES
---- YES
-----------------
e- - -------
NO ----------
NO ----------
NO ---------
NO --
-
NO
-
- -
-
NO
------ NO
---------- NO
---------- NO
----------
-
Interf
- ----------
YES __
--------
YES - - --
YES ----------
YES ----
----
YES -----
YES YES YES YES
---
Groundwater? YES YES
-
-------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
Parameters: ---------- -
SQO 0 0 0
---- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
POTFW ----------
0.2 ----------
0.2 ------
0.2 0.2
-
-- 0.2
--
-------- 0.2
----------- 0.2
----------- 0.2
---------- 0.2
----------
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 -------
-
0 -
0 0
----- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
ACQOP ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
0 ---------
0
-
-
---
- ------
0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
0 ----- -----
0 ----- -----
0 ----------
_ 0_-__ -
-
-
-
__---0---- - 0 0 0 0
_---
WSQOP 0 _._
0
- -__
0
------ --
0
----------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
----------
----------------- ---------- -------
-- ----
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES _YES YES__ YES
--- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
------------
Overland Flow?
------------ ----------
NO
--
------ ----------
---------- --
-
NO
---------- -
NO
---------- NO
---------- NO
----------- NO
---------- NO
----------
----------
-----
Parameters: -
-
SQO 0 U
--- 0---
--- --- -0---- •----0----- ----0 --- ---- ---- ----------
------
-----
POTFW ----
----
2.4 --------- - --
-
5
---- -
-- 3.7 ---
- 5
--- ------ ---2:4-- -
- --3.4 _-- --- 3.4 ---
..........
-----
-----
ACQOP -
0 ----------
-- -
0
-------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
----------
----------
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
0 -------
- --
0 0 0
....
------ 0
..... ------ 0 ----
------ 0
----------
----------
-----------------
WSQOP ----------
0 ---------- ----------
0 ----------
0 .
0 0 0 0
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
W B Woods/Brush
CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
1
1
1

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES NO YES

.... YES

.... __

___
_
YES

__
_
YES

__
YES
_

__
_
YES NO
_
-_
_
Overland Flow? NO ---
YES -----
IV-- W6 --- YES YES YES
Interflow. YES YES YES
- YES
-------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
--------- YES
----------
-----------------
Groundwater?
- ----------
YES
---------- ------- --
YES
---------- -------
-
YES
---------- --
YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------------
Parameters:
SQO 0 0:9 0
- 0
-
-------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0.12
---------- 0.12
---------- 0.9
----------
-----------------
POTFW ------
52 - ---
0 ---------
80
-- -
70
----------- 80
----------- 52
----------- 57
----------- 57
--•------- 0.0
----------
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----------
0 --------
0
- 0
----
-- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
ACQOP ----------
0 --- ---
0.29 ----- ----
0 ---
-
0
0
-
0---
.04
0---
.04
----
SQOLIM_ 0 2.9 0
----
--- --- 0_--
- _-__ 0 _-- _ 0
---------- 0.4
---------- 0.4
---------- 2.9
----------
-_-
- -
WSQOP -___
----
0 - ---
0.5
-------- --
-
0
---------- 0
--------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
----------
-----------------
IMPLND ---------- --
Associated with:
Sediment? YES --YES -- _--YES YES__ YES_ YES-_- -- YES_-_
----------
------------
Overland Flow?
-
----- ---
NO
---------- ----------
---------- _
NO
---------- NO
---------- NO
---------- NO
----------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
---ramete-------rs-
:
Sao 0
-
--- 0
----- ----- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0.12
---------- 0.12_ __
--
----------
-----------------
POTFW ----------
300 -----
- 500_-- -_-400--- --- 500 __ ___ 300-__ _ 260
- --- _260---
.. -
---------
-----
____
ACQOP _--
_-
0 _
--------- _•
-
0 0 0
-
-
-- 0
----------- 0.04
---------- 0.04
----------
----------
----
--
--
---------
SQOLIM -------
-
--
0 ---------- ----------
0 ----------
0 ----
-
-
0 0 0.4 0.4
WSQOP 0 -__
__•
0 0 0 0 0.5 = 0.5 l I

Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR
LDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
NITRITE+NITRATE NITROGEN (N023N)

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND -W-/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES NO YES YES YES
-
- YES
--------- YES
--- YES NO
---------------

Overland Flow. ----------

YES ----------

YES ----------

N-- ----------

NO ----
-
---
NO -

-YES -------

YES
-------- -
YES
- - ------
YE
S-
Interflow. --
YES YES YES
.. YES .
. YES__ ___ YES___ __ YES___ __ YES_-- -_ YES --
__ _
____
Groundwater? __
YES- __
_
YES -
---------- __
..
YES
---------- ...
.
YES
----------- ...
YES
----------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
Parameters: ----------
SQO 0.012 0.00005 0
- 0
---------- 0
------- _--0.012 _ --0.003_- _-0.003-_ _0.00005_
-----------------
POTFW _-
--
3.1 ----------
0 --------
-
3.1 3.1 -
3.1
------
- 3.1
---------- 3.5
---------- 3.5
---------- 0.0
----------
-----------------
POT ----------
? ----------
? ----------
? ----------
.
...
. ---
-
........ -
...........
....... ---- ...
-- ---- --- .....
-
--
..---
--------
ACQOP ---
--
- --
0.004 ---
- -
---
0.000018 ---
- ----
0 ...
..
.
0 ...
0
----- 0.004
---------- 0.001
---------- 0.001
---------- 0.000018
----------
-----------------
SQOLIM ----------
0.04 ----------
0.00018 -----------
0
---------- ----------
0
---------- ----
-
0
----------- -
0.04
----------- 0.01
----------- 0.01
---------- 0.00018
----------
-----
WSQOP
-
-
- _
___
0.5
---------- -
_
0.5
---------- -
0
---------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
----------
-----------
-
--
IMPLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES _-YES _-
- YES
----------- YES
----------- YES
----------- YES
----------- YES
----------
----------
___
O
verland Flow?
-
- __
___
YES
-------- _
- -------
---------- NO
---------- NO
---------- NO
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
--
- ---
---
--
----
Parameters: -
-
SQO 0.012 0
---
--- 0
----------- 0
----------- 0.012
----------- 0.003 -
--------- 0.003
----------
----------
----------------
POTFW ----------
16 ---------- ---
-
---32 --- ----24 --- ----32--- ---- .. -- 12 -- ........
-----
ACQOP 0.004 0 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.001
SQOLIM 0.04 0 0 0 0.04 0.01

---
0.01
----
------

----------
-------------SQOP ----
W ---
---- 0--.5 - ---------- ----- 0 ----- ----- 0 ----- ----------
0 -----------
0.5 --- U.;7 .5
0
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day) -
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN)
-
1
1 1 LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND W/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES YES
-
---- YES
---------- YES
----------- YES
---------- YES
---------- YES
-------
---
----------------
Overland Flow? ----------
YES ----------
NO ----------
NO ----
-
NO NO __YES ___ __YES ___ __YES ___ NO
Interflow. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
_
____
---
Groundwater? ----
--- YES --- _
___
-YES
-------- __
___
YES
---------- __
___
YES
---------- ___
...
YES
----------- ...
YES ---
----------- ___
----
--- YES
---------- _-
-
YES ---
---------- ----
--- YES ---
----------
------------------
Parameters: ---------- --
SQO 0.018 0 0 _
- 0
--
--- 0 __
--- --0.018__ __0_009_ 0.009
---
--- 0 ----
---
POTFW..... ._7.5 _- __5.6 --- ---10.0
- 10.0
-------- 10.0
---------- 7.5
----------- 8.8
---------- 8.8
---------- 5.6
----------
-
-----------------
POTFS ----------
0 ----------
0 ---------
0 --
0
-
--- 0
---------- 0
----------- 0
--------
-- 0
---------- 0
----------
-------------
ACQOP ---- --------
-- 0.006 ----------
0 ----- -----
0 --
----
0 0 0.006 0.003 0.003 0
------ ----- ---------- ---------- -
0 -
__ 0
-------
-----6------ 0.06___
--- -- :03 0___ ___0.03___ _.-- 0___-
WSQOP ---
0.5
-
-
--- -
0
---------- _
---------
0
---------- -
-
0
---------- 0
---------- 0.5
----------- 0.5
---------- 0.5
---------- 0
----------
-----------------
IMPLND --
-
--
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES __YES__ ___YES___ __ YES___ __ YES __ __________
-
-
•---------------
Overland Flow?
-
------ -_
---
YES
--- --- ----------

---------- _
_
--
_ NO-__
-- ___
___ NO___ _
_ NO___
___ YES___
_ YES__•
YES
----------

----------
_
.
.
..--
-
-
Parameters:
SQO 0.018 0
-------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0.018
----------- 0.009
---------- 0.009
----------
----------
-----------------
POT
FW __
--
27 -----
----- --
90 65 90 27
----------- 39
---
----
--- 39
..
---
-
..........
- _
----
ACQOP --.. .0006 6 --
0 ---------- ___ 0
- ---- - 0 ---- _-_
-
0
0.006 .003
0
003
0.003
SQOLIM 0.06 0 0 0 0.06
-
--
- 0.03
---------- 0.03
-------•--
----------
----------- ----
WSQOP- ----- ----
0.5 ---------- -----
0 --- -- -
0 ----------
0 -----
-
-
0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameters:
SQO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day) -
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush

CALIBRATED WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
TOTALPHOSPHORUS

LTCOM OS/2AC MDR HDR LDR HVCOM INST LT IND -W-/B
PERLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES YES
--- YES
---------- YES
----
-- YES
----------- YES
---- ----- YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
Overland Flow? ----------
NO ----------
NO -------
N--
-
NO
---
---- W67
-----------
NO
----
NO
---
-
NO
----
NO
_
---------
Interflow? -----------
YES -----------
YES ----------
YES --
--
YES YES -------
YES
- ---
----
YES
---
--- YES
---------- YES
----------
-----------------
Groundwater?
------ ----------
_ YES__
- ----------
YES _- ----------
___YES -_ ----------
___YES __ ----------
YES
----------- ----------
YES
----------- --
--
YES
----------- __ YES _ _ YES.
Parameters:
SQO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
POTFW - - ----- ----- ------ ----------- ----------- ---------- - --- --- --- ---------
POTFS - ---
-- -
0 --- -
---
0 ---
0 _ 0
---- 0 -__
------- ..-__0_
- _0
___ __-_ 0
---- 0
----------
__-_
-- -
ACOOP -___
____
0 _ _
- -------
0 ----- -----
0
-
-- _-
-
0
----------- 0
----------- ---
0
----------- --
-
-
0
----------- 0
---------- 0
----------
----------------
SOOLIM ----------
0 ----------
0 ---
----
0
0
-
----
------
-
•-

-•-
-------
----- ----
----?----
---- -----
---- ---
WSQOP ---
-
-- ----
0 ----
---------- ___
- 0----
---------- ---- 0-- -
---------- ---
-0
---------- 0
--------- 0
----------- 0
---------- 0
---------- 0
----------
------------
--
IMPLND
Associated with:
Sediment? YES YES
_ -YES _-
_ _YES_ _
---------- YES
---------- YES
----------
----------
.
------------
Overland Flow?
- ----------
NO
--------- ----------
---------- _
_
-
NO
---------- _
NO
----------- NO ---
---- -- ----------- --- NO

------- NO ---

------- ----------
--- -----
--------
Parameters: -
SQO 0 0 0 0
--
-----
----------- 0
---------- 0
----------
----------
-----------------
POTFW ----------
5.8 ---------- ----------
17 ----------
11
-
-
-- -
--
-----------
1 ----------- ----------- --- -- ---
-----
ACQOP -.
---
0 ----
- ---
0
-
- ----
-
--
0
---------- _ __ 0-__ -----------
0
----------
0
----------

----------
---_
----
SQOLIM ----------
0 ---------- _
__-
-
-
0 0 0
-- 0
-
-------- 0
----------
----------
--------- - - -
WSQOP ----------
0 ---------- -- -- -
0 --- - ---
0 ---------
0 --------- -
0 0
Parameters:
SOO Initial load on surface (lb/ac)
POTFW Potency factor (lb constituent/ton washoff sediment)
POTFS Potency factor (lb constituent/ton gully erosion sediment)
ACQOP Accumulation rate on surface (lb/ac/day)
SQOLIM Maximum surface accumulation (lb/ac)
WSQOP Hourly runoff washing 90% of mass off land surface (inches)
Land Use Codes:
LTCOM Light commercial
OS/2AC Open space/>2 ac residential
MDR 0.25 - 0.5 acre residential
HDR 0.25 acre residential/apartments
LDR 0.5 - 2 acre residential
HVCOM Heavy commercial
INST Institutional
LTIND Light industrial
WB Woods/Brush
t
Appendix
C

00
x'

t
HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 1 Stage-Area-Storage Tables
(Refer to plan sheet T2, Appendix C for pool ID numbers)
OPEN POOL #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
700.5 6,399 0 0
701.5 8,667 7,533 7,533
702.5 11,085 9,876 17,409
703.5 13,651 12,368 29,777
704.5 16,336 14,994 44,771
705.5 19,110 17,723 62,494
706.5 21,991 20,551 83,044
707.5 24,980 23,486 106,530
708.5 28,059 26,520 133,049
709.5 31,243 29,651 162,700
715.5 31,243 187,458 350,158
OPEN POOL #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
699 2,391 0 0
700 3,354 2,873 2,873
701 4,544 3,949 6,822
702 5,956 5,250 12,072
703 7,574 6,765 18,837
704 9,263 8,419 27,255
705 11,090 10,177 37,432
706 13,062 12,076 49,508
712 13,062 78,372 127,880
OPEN POOL #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
697 9,558 0 0
698 11,265 10,412 10,412
699 12,968 12,117 22,528
700 14,695 13,832 36,360
701 16,451 15,573 51,933
702 18,230 17,341 69,273
703 20,053 19,142 88,415
704 22,274, 21,164 109,578
710 22,274 133,644 243,222
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
OPEN POOL #1 WETLAND AREA
Permanent T above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
704.5 706.5 21,991 702.5 11,085 10,906
OPEN POOL #2 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
703 705 11,090 701 4,544 6,546
NO WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)

1
11/12/2001
t
OPEN POOL #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
697 10,428 0 0
698 14,950 12,689 12,689
699 19,619 17,285 29,974
700 24,411 22,015 51,989
701 29,391 26,901 78,890
702 34,360 31,876 110,765
703 39,433 36,897 147,662
704 44,642 42,038 189,699
705 49,956 47,299 236,998
712 49,956 349,692 586,690
OPEN POOL #5

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
694 11,026 0 0
695 14,329 12,678 12,678
696 18,650 16,490 29,167
697 23,275 20,963 50,130
698 28,070 25,673 75,802
699 33,011 30,541 106,343
700 38,042 35,527 141,869
701 43,143 40,593 182,462
702 48,366 45,755 228,216
703 53,695 51,031 279,247
704 59,140 56,418 335,664
705 64,698 61,91911 397,583
712 64,698 452,886 850,469
OPEN POOL #6

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
694 17,564 0 0
695 19,972 18,768 18,768
696 22,606 21,289 40,057
697 25,600 24,103 64,160
698 28,739 27,170 91,330
699 31,995 30,367 121,697
700 35,353 33,674 155,371
701 38,811 37,082 192,453
702 42,369 40,590 233,043
703 44,186 43,278 276,320
704 46,029 45,108 321,428
705 47,896, 46,963, 368,390
712 47,896 335,272 703,662
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
OPEN POOL #4 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
701 703 39,433 699 19,619 19,814
OPEN POOL #5 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft•) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq• ft-) Elev.
(ft•) Area
(sq• ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
700 702 48,366 698 28,070 20,296
OPEN POOL #6 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
700 702 42,369 698 28,739 13,630
2
11/12/2001
V
t
WET LAND AR EA BELOW SPRINGVIEW

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
704 27,154 0 0
705 29,875 28,515 28,515
706 32,738 31,307 59,821
707 32,738 32,738 92,559

FOREBAY #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
706 1,626 0 0
707 2,009 1,818 1,818
708 2,434 2,222 4,039
709 2,896 2,665 6,704
710 3,366 3,131 9,835
715 3,366 16,830 26,665

FOREBAY #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 2,865 0 0
703 3,404 3,135 3,135
704 3,971 3,688 6,822
705 4,565 4,268 11,090
710 4,565 22,825 33,915

FOREBAY #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
705 5,576 0 0
706 6,522 6,049 6,049
707 7,492 7,007 13,056
708 8,488 7,990 21,046
709 9,508 8,998 30,044
710 10,554 10,031 40,075
711 11,626 11,090 51,165
716 11,626 58,130 109,295

FOREBAY #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 4,221 0 0
703 4,911 4,566 4,566
704 5,626 5,269 9,835
705 6,367 5,997 15,831
706 7,133 6,750 22,581
707 7,923 7,528 30,109
712 7,923 39,615 69,724
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
3
11/12/2001

HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase 1 of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 1 b Stage-Area-Storage Tables
OPEN POOL #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
700.5 6,399 0 0
701.5 8,667 7,533 7,533
702.5 11,085 9,876 17,409
703.5 13,651 12,368 29,777
704.5 16,336 14,994 44,771
705.5 19,110 17,723 62,494
706.5 21,991 20,551 83,044
707.5 24,980 23,486 106,530
708.5 28,059 26,520 133,049
709.5 31,243 29,651 162,700
715.5 31,243 187,458 350,158
OPEN POOL #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
699 2,391 0 0
700 3,354 2,873 2,873
701 4,544 3,949 6,822
702 5,956 5,250 12,072
703 7,574 6,765 18,837
704 9,263 8,419 27,255
705, 11,090, 10,177, 37,432
706 13,062 12,076 49,508
712 13,062 78,372 127,880
O PEN POOL #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
697 9,558 0 0
698 11,265 10,412 10,412
699 12,968 12,117 22,528
700 14,695 13,832 36,360
701 16,451 15,573 51,933
702 18,230 17,341 69,273
703 20,053 19,142 88,415
704 22,274 21,164 109,578
710 22,274 133,644 243,222
Stage-Area-Strge.xis
OPEN POOL #1 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
704.5 706.5 21,991 702.5 11,085 10,906
OPEN POOL #2 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
703 705 11,090 701 4,544 6,546
NO WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)

1
11/12/2001

OPE N POOL #4 (FOREBAY for ALT. 1 b)

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
699 5,009 0 0
700 6,350 5,680 5,680
701 7,814 7,082 12,762
702 9,389 8,602 21,363
703 11,080 10,235 31,598
704 12,918 11,999 43,597
706 121918 51,830 64,592
708 12,918 66,921 88,284
709 12,918 71,994 103,592
710 12,918 77,508 121,105
OPEN POOL #5

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
694 45,607 0 0
695 50,356 47,982 47,982
696 55,260 52,808 100,790
697 60,312 57,786 158,576
698 65,507 62,910 221,485
699 70,840 68,174 289,659
700 76,304 73,572 363,231
701 81,892 79,098 442,329
702 87,602 84,747 527,076
703 93,434 90,518 617,594
704 99,380 96,407 714,001
705 105,704 102,542, 816,543
712 105,704 739,928 1,556,471
OPEN POOL #6

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
694 17,564 0 0
695 19,972 18,768 18,768
696 22,606 21,289 40,057
697 25,600 24,103 64,160
698 28,739 27,170 91,330
699 31,995 30,367 121,697
700 35,353 33,674 155,371
701 38,811 37,082 192,453
702 42,369 40,590 233,043
703 44,186 43,278 276,320
704 46,029 45,108 321,428
705 47,896 46,963 368,390
712 47,896 335,272 703,662
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
NO WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)

OPEN POOL #5 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
700 702 87,602 698 65,507 22,095
OPEN POOL #6 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
700 702 42,369 698 28,739 13,630
2
11/12/2001
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WET LAND AR EA BELOW SPRINGVIEW

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.).
704 27,154 0 0
705 29,875 28,515 28,515
706 32,738 31,307 59,821
707 32,738 32,738 92,559
FOREBAY #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
706 1,626 0 0
707 2,009 1,818 1,818
708 2,434 2,222 4,039
709 2,896 2,665 6,704
710 3,366 3,131 9,835
715 3,366 16,830 26,665
FOREBAY #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 2,865 0 0
703 3,404 3,135 3,135
704 3,971 3,688 6,822
705 4,565 4,268 11,090
710 4,565 22,825 33,915
FOREBAY #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
705 5,576 0 0
706 6,522 6,049 6,049
707 7,492 7,007 13,056
708 8,488 7,990 21,046
709 9,508 8,998 30,044
710 10,554 10,031 40,075
711 11,626 11,090 51,165
716 11,626 58,130 109,295
FOREBAY #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 4,221 0 0
703 4,911 4,566 4,566
704 5,626 5,269 9,835
705 6,367 5,997 15,831
706 7,133 6,750 22,581
707 7,923 7,528 30,109
H 7
12 7,923 39,615 69,724
Stage-Area-Strge.xis
3
11/12/2001
t
t
HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 2 Stage-Area-Storage Tables
(Refer to plan sheet T2, Appendix C for pool ID numbers)
DRY POOL #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)

704.5 16,336 0 0
705.5 19,110 17,723 17,723
706.5 21,991 20,551 38,274
707.5 24,980 23,486 61,759
708.5 28,059 26,520 88,279
709.5 31,243 29,651 117,930
715.5 31,243 187,458 305,388
DRY POOL #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)

703 7,574 0 0
704 9,263 8,419 8,419
705 11,090 10,177 18,595
706 13,062 12,076 30,671
712 13,062 78,372 109,043
OPEN POOL #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft. Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
697 9,558 0 0
698 11,265 10,412 10,412
699 12,968 12,117 22,528
700 14,695 13,832 36,360
701 16,451 15,573 51,933
702 18,230 17,341 69,273
703 20,053 19,142 88,415
704 22,274 21,164 109,578
710 22,274 133,644 243,222
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
1
11/12/2001

DRY POOL #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)

701 29,391 0 0
702 34,360 31,876 31,876
703 39,433 36,897 68,772
704 44,642 42,038 110,810
705 49,956 47,299 158,109
712 49,956 349,692 507,801
OPEN POOL #5

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)

700 38,042 0 0
701 43,143 40,593 40,593
702 48,366 45,755 86,347
703 53,695 51,031 137,378
704 59,140 56,418 193,795
705 64,698 61,919 255,714
712 64,698 452,886 708,600
DRY POOL #6

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)

700 35,353 0 0
701 38,811 37,082 37,082
702 42,369 40,590 77,672
703 44,186 43,278 120,950
704 46,029 45,108 166,057
705 47,896 46,963 213,020
712 47,896 335,272 548,292
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
2
11/12/2001
I
L,

1

LI

WET LAND AR EA BELOW SPRINGVIEW

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
704 27,154 0 0
705 29,875 28,515 28,515
706 32,738 31,307 59,821
707 32,738 32,738 92,559
FOREBAY #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
706 1,626 0 0
707 2,009 1,818 1,818
708 2,434 2,222 4,039
709 2,896 2,665 6,704
710 3,366 3,131 9,835
715 3,366 16,830 26,665
FOREBAY #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 2,865 0 0
703 3,404 3,135 3,135
704 3,971 3,688 6,822
705 4,565 4,268 11,090
710 4,565 22,825 33,915
FOREBAY #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
705 5,576 0 0
706 6,522 6,049 6,049
707 7,492 7,007 13,056
708 8,488 7,990 21,046
709 9,508 8,998 30,044
710 10,554 10,031 40,075
711 11,626 11,090 51,165
716 11,626 58,130 109,295
FOREBAY #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 4,221 0 0
703 4,911 4,566 4,566
704 5,626 5,269 9,835
705 6,367 5,997 15,831
706 7,133 6,750 22,581
707 7,923 7,528 30,109
712 7,923 39,615 69,724,
Stage-Area-Strge.xls 3 11/12/2001

t
HIDDEN VALLEY ECOLOGICAL GARDEN
Wellingford Street Regional Water Quality Basin (Wetlands Restoration)
Phase I of the Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
Alternative 3 Stage-Area-Storage Tables
(Refer to plan sheet T2, Appendix C for pool ID numbers)
WETLAND A REA #1 (Open pool #1)

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
706.5 21,991 0 0
707.5 24,980 23,486, 23,486
708.5 28,059 26,520 50,005
709.5 31,243 29,651 79,656
715.5 31,243 187,458 267,114
OPEN POOL #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
699 2,391 0 0
700 3,354 2,873 2,873
701 4,544 3,949 6,822
702 5,956 5,250 12,072
703 7,574 6,765 18,837
9,263 8,419 27,255
11,090 10,177 37,432
A 13,062 12,076 49,508
712 13,062 78,372 127,880
OPE N POOL #3,4, 5,6

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
694 130086 0 0
695 137078 133,582 133,582
696 144215 140,647 274,229
697 151439 147,827 422,056
698 158746 155,092 577,148
699 166138 162,442 739,590
700 173614 169,876 909,466
701 181174 177,394 1,086,861
702 189273 185,224 1,272,084
703 193186 191,230 1,463,314
704 197118 195,152 1,658,466
705 201074 199,096 1,857,562
706 205054 203,064 2,060,626
707 209059 207,057 2,267,683
708 213088 211,074 2,478,757
709 217142 215,115 2,693,872
715.5 217,142 "1,411,425 2,874,739
Stage-Area-Strge.xls
OPEN POOL #2 WETLAND AREA
Permanent 2' above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq• ft.)
703 705 11,090 701 4,544 6,546
OPEN POOL #3,4,5,6 WETLAND AREA
Permanent T above Perm. Pool 2' above Perm. Pool Wetland
Pool Elev.
(ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Elev.
(ft.) Area
(sq. ft.) Area
(sq. ft.)
700 702 189,273 698 158,746 30,527
1
11/12/2001
.•

t
t
WET LAND AR EA BELOW SPRINGVIEW

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
704 27,154 0 0
705 29,875 28,515 28,515
706 32,738 31,307 59,821
707 32,738 32,738 92,559
FOREBAY #1

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
706 1,626 0 0
707 2,009 1,818 1,818
708 2,434 2,222 4,039
709 2,896 2,665 6,704
710 3,366 3,131 9,835
715 3,366 16,830 26,665
FOREBAY #2

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 2,865 0 0
703 3,404 3,135 3,135
704 3,971 3,688 6,822
705 4,565 4,268 11,090
710 4,565 22,825 33,915
FOREBAY #3

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
705 5,576 0 0
706 6,522 6,049 6,049
707 7,492 7,007 13,056
708 8,488 7,990 21,046
709 9,508 8,998 30,044
710 10,554 10,031 40,075
711 11,662-266 11,0901 51,165
716 11,626 f
58,130 109,295
FOREBAY #4

Stage
(ft.)
Area
(sq. ft.) Incremental
Volume
(cu. ft.) Accumulated
Volume
(cu. ft.)
702 4,221 0 0
703 4,911 4,566 4,566
704 5,626 5,269 9,835
705 6,367 5,997 15,831
706 7,133 6,750 22,581
707 7,923 7,528 30,109
712 7,923 39,615 69,724
Stage-Area-Strge.xis

2
11/12/2001

N
a
W
J
m
H
0 0 0 0
N co o ti
=
m
L L
01
C
L
0

0
G
ti I-- r-
-
000 LO
N
CD
T
4) -
(o
(O L6
M
N
LL LO
R
LL v
M > d C
Q
?.
O

O
x
O
d
V
0
f?
CD w N NT ? - to
Lo 0 -0 4+ (6 O to cl N
V

3 ?
O Q
CD
T
d u)
CO 0
00 0
7
(q
Cl?
O I,- ti I- U') N
0) ?

la
s-
0) w
0)
Q
0 0 0 ? o
0
V 00 O
?- N
M (O
=
C
V i

a
o

G C14
r- r-
v I,-
r C%4
00 co
CO CO 6 L6 N
LO LL IA
CA i L
r-
> N C
Q 0 '??
CA
V) N v ? V ti
C
O N
v
0 (O (o Lo N
N
= y
.,
W

Q a
c

t (0 0 0)
00 0)
Ln 00
N

0) N
L
d m
C
G
?
Q
J

-0 > O
` Q Q) :3
E Q Z
U i C _ Q
(n (A LL
a)
rn
m
rn
N
L
O
N
N
N
O.
a?
m
L
D ai
'a (D
? L
a) U
0:
m -
M
O N
O
m N
-0
O
0 N C
E "
a
_ •c cn
O Lo
O Lo 0)
Cl) 0
N c N
(a O
r L
.D 0 L
-a rn U
N O
c s ?
o
nz
" N
M 3
N cn
3 ° LL
E O
O N f/)
q--
N w
CM .
LU CU O
O o LL
Z CV M
0
00
v
X
z
G
c
V
% \ / / \
~v ~ - _ \ i~~~
/ . ~U1W
i 'f ~ ~ Z W W N
_ ~j r / w?-O m_F-N Z ~t
~ r i,. w ~ ~ - o~ ~ Z~~N W~ N ~ ~
f to ~ ~ J
I _ ~ _ . - - - I ~ i ~ o I W~ ~ W Z ~ ~ w~ ~ pp I- Y V1 O U (D ~
-1-- _ _ _ I - i I I _ _ _ _ - ~ ~ ~ U / z ~ ~ Z M a~ Qom' ~ -OO W~tr Mrs
- i ~ ~ ~~U ~WF-- ~ W ~ H W~~} w
• ~ ~ ~
I - ~ y W ~Q WQ ~"~O a zoo I-~H ~ f~ a
~ ` - PL _ - = ~ O ~ ~ ~ J u
.i ~ ono . ~ J~Z~ X
L _ _ _ _ P _ ~ _ - I , J . a d r y ~ Q I Q ~ O y 2
J 4, - _ ~ - S a l- O ~ ~ 2~ U
~ - _ ~~S U ~ cn ~ ~
_ ~ ~ $S . i _ SS SS _ / ~ y rn ;y ~ ~ U
~ S - - y r ~ ~
" - ~-SAS V1 I . _ ~ SS _,~-5&, PL ' ~V U ~
_ SS SS _ •Q ~ ~ ~ w
- • 1 )d ~ ~ ~ w
/SS ` pL I I SS ~ 1~1 ~ ~ y z ~ I ) y ~ a~ Z
1" / - ~ 4 _ PL > - v- i / r ~ w ~ U~ ;y I ~
~y / ~ w
` ~ _ ~ O ` / y ii ~ ~ ~ / y ~ o
/ / ~
I - ~ ~ W I - 0 j / ~ v ,y /
, , J / y Q. ~ p ~ ; ` / L' / w
I v i "I ~ ~ ~ yy > C~ ~ / O
I ~ I y i ~ \ ~ , ~ ~ a
. ~ _ ~ I ~ i y a } / ~ Q ~ Q
~ i ~ / y y , Q ~ /
I N t ~ / FAQ ~
- H . i v: / yy / ~
l/~. yr9 i
U.P , W
' o, Z
y / 0 ~ i 1~ .
A` y ~ F"
y O (n ~ ~ V .Q V W
i y ~ ~ U / y to > r N ~
/'v~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~J I ~ W
~j`C f - 1Q QJOn / N W n ~1 U
l ~ Z ~ ~ - yy W / / Z ~
(vJ / ~ . % ~ \ _ ~ 0 ~ c~ 1 ~ Qw i ~ aJW 1 0
y r ~ d' W 1 y , Z ~ ~ ~ V
/ / ,v ~o ~ y Ww~ 1l; ~ ~W d.
_ - ~ ,0 ti j N y ~ ~ ~ ;'~.b aQO 1 ~Q w N ,1
i / Q ~ ~ ~ , 03m 0 X30 ~ ~ 1,,j y z / y , LL
~ , _ _ % ~ ~1 , o ~ 0 0 y O U O U U
~V ~ 5~ ~ , / y r1 1 ~ ~ ~ C~ r~
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r yy .........r
~ ~ 1 ~ m~ m ~ r r _ z~ z z
i ti~ \ ' / Z ~ h yy~ ~ ~i~ 1 1 JO J J~
.1 ~ ~
~ W W ~ ~ t- ' 1 'a _ ss-~'""s U Q U ~ U ' a I y ~ _$S ~ ~U ~U~UZ
y ~ i I I ss > ~ I s
tii Q - i (3 ~ Q I 1 - -P~ ,F RD
` )d i 1 W c~ I VIE _ _ NG - RI
- - I PL ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ AA++ I P r° i ~
~ ~ ~ /SS S , , SS W I I ~k o ~
S i I ~ 0 >
~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ PL - ' - ~ ~ - - ..r. Q Q
i 1~ ~ r ~ m w - - 1 _ _ r. 1 W
~ ~ ~ ti PLC ~ i ' ti PL ~ ~ ~ L - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tr o
~ / ~ , ~ ~ ~ . - ~ o ~ ~ ~
l` ~ % i / ~ I ~ LL m ~ ~ ~ '1 i _
1 W ~ ~
I J ~ ~
Q ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~r \ ~ ~ 6' ~ ~ y ~ 1 .J I , I ~
_ - `~~1 / y 0 . L
i J ~ ~ Qa I I,~ J ~ 0 'Q N
\ ~ a.. Q V J ~ Q
i ~ i ~ ~ ~ : 1 .;S ~ rl N J
:~1~ ..0 A+ O W 0 1 0 Q 2
TT O V/ W .•~O~ M rnrn M V/ 1 / LL a
~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ . ''riti•:u}r:ii'r°i'rri. Q s.f~: Fi;3itircii• r s o_~ ~ 1
\ ~ ! ' ~ Q 9 Z . 2 W w U,_, /l,,,,
_ ~ ~ ~C~ .iLJ~ir::i••iiii•:i~'r: J :G•• w 1W s a J W ~ Js•:::iari::i:c::•rtii'r::• tir.:::cr:?s•'r'r:t:°i•:{•:tiieii ~ie:•;:^
~ - `5 ~ 'y .etiiE::i'ri}ri:rtii:i:'r •:Wr::•::{:a°:ii: :Wi ~ ~ N
\~p Z AAl1 1 w W
'O;: i ' o n ti~E o~~ Q a ~ Q Z
Il m'r'rirE:ti.i::tit'ri i ~ ,~y :o;•; w 1 ~ i 3;rm::r:•Eirr::{titi:::tiieiis'rrr:iai•::'r::iEii:?:iii'r::rii:tii::: J > W a ` n.
~ o .
_ ~ i. 1 . L
is ~ Q _ , ~V L P
J 0 F, ~ i
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q r ~ ~ 1 W 4 W
~ , E - , _ _ RD - . , Gp _ • ~ .
` ~ _ L
- ~ r 1 - l • -
_ ~ - - - . . , M . EA
- - ~ ;.fir: ~1 ' Q _ d - ~ • • STR - _ _ _ L L . •
/~~y;; NG reek : ~ ~ ~,ttl ss
_ L , ~ - -
_ - ' ~ ~ SS = ~ L . - ,
r Q _ _ _ ~ p~ _ Q SS
by / - - - -i
/ ~ i, PL O , r. , - _
~ ' M o o ' ~ ~ ~ ~P, S - ~ ~ ~ l'
~ _ 1,~~ , rn , ~E / ~ i i' / ~ ~ - i
~ G ~ s ~.,.5 :,'.~',,y ~.L,,.,,~ ,-t% S , r _ ~ i ~ ? ~
w 0 w ~ ~ , 1 ~
f Q W ~ / ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ y'~V~ ~ O y,r to Z W w I ' r Q J I ~ i, i
~ ~ , ~ 3 m ~5. 1 / i I L
J ~ 1 ~
O~ w ,
- E ~Li. 1~ ;yy s~, ;'y - ' ' ' i V~
~1tJ :r E ` E / TR ~ ~ 1 I
\ ~ ~ ~y,y 4,~ ~ r' ~ o ~ 0~ ~ 1 Q`' ~ 5~~ . - ~ ~ o „ o I ~i - - L
~ . ; ~ ~l J IL 1 ~ • . ~ i ~ ~ I - rn 1 O
s ~ ' S ` 0 0 0 = ~ ~ .....r ~ ~ 4 I ~ r
I 0 >~w > ~ ~ ~ ! 'A
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w J ~ a J W w ~ S`' ~ ~ti , ~ ~ . I w J J W ! I
; Q Y~ ~ ~,ly w Z ~ J I ! ~ . ~ ~
Q ~ r , ~ W ~ o o ~ C~ ~ s f= ~ ~ I ~
~ J H ~ ~ ~ IL a Q ~.,y O 0 3 m ~o a .m
ti~' S / h~. s q f. ! ~ ._._.r--~
- ~ _ - W ~ , i J a
~~.y iQ '
Q Q 'r ~ ~
~0 v I ~ w J 1 ~ !
o ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r I o lU a O
~J°~ ~~I ~ ~ o I 1, o Z p r` ;~I n ~4 ~ a _
_ I r, 0 > ~ ~ r ~Q z o I
v W J `I ~ a Jw rV ~ Q ~ i ~
w t• ri z ~ , ~ ~ N ~o,~ . i !
,--J o W ~ o _ _~,l ~ o , ~ ~ r. 2 ~ W w ~ ~ e IZ a ~ o ! ~ ~ z
o~' o J a~~ I o~ol~ W o 03m : I; I z0 m r 1 ' ~ ~
M„ ~ > ~ 1, ' W W - o Z Z
~ ~ I : ~ 0 > W V~ 2 O ~ ~ I'vNi` W J ~ r 1 a J w (~o: W I ~ W~ J W
Q J ,~o z ~ Z ~ m ~Q / Ul ~
m :o;;~ - rn ;o ~ Ww; r~ ° v N Q' :I ~ z N ~ N
W ~ ~ . ~ o ::o . I , • I ;o ; a I~ ~ V r Q o ~ o, k, ~ _ ..o.:: ~ . a o Q ,o ~ I ~ C ~ J ~ W U N M
0 0 i, ,i ~ •o.: W W ~ p ~ d' Q Q W ~ na o ~ U ~ ~o r.
m H _ _ O ~ rW lL N Z n r ~ DWI O W _ Q NN " o ~ ~ Z ~ W C~
I~ I ~ o r W ~ ~ 1 ~ - n Q' ~ N x" ~ HERS Q Q ~ HEY ST~ a ~ cn cn v
~ r r 1 ,'y' ~ ~ ~ o o
0 ~ Wp ~1
~ - v r a ~:1 I ~ W f U Z Z Z or lU 1 ~ W - - - O O o ~ N
I; \j . : . ~ ~ ~ V . wT~IT........ ....1.... \ ~ y r , . I 1 ~ a \ V i 4 ~ ~ a w ~Z M i o c_n c_n (_n a r .
J Q ~ ~ ; J W . . 0 0 ~ ~ X X X ~ ~ o= °
. . ~ ~ W W W d ~ ~ ~ " r o c° u
~ r l ~ ~ ~ r ~ = I ~ : r
1 `I r
~ ,y,~ r j. ~ I ! r ~ z ~ r
~ r ;a I i4 ~ ' Q ~ I
1 r 1 _ ~ I ~ ~ f ~ , ~ ~
. _ 1 N _ . ~ d y
r - - J y I I ~ (~J W I
ZO ~ ~ / ~r o ~ ~ Z
s C . r i . _ . ti ~ ...i' _ ,r ~ ~ ~ LJ.1 W Z Q ~ p ~ I 2 I-
~ ~ ' . r ld ~ _ . . ~ ~ - ¢ i cn F--
~ _ Q Q
~ l 1 ld j . j r r > ~ H i O W r ~ Z w y
1 ti r d y . . i- . ~ ~ w w Z
- - - o - o w w 0
_ 1 N ~ ~ . - ~ 1 p _ e _ , - o ~ -
- r ~ . .....:'r > ~ r Q ~
- Q W ~ / ~ ~ o ~ ~
J ~ ~ h r ~ sNro~~ne m W ~ ~ ~ ~ 9NI1 SlX3 w ~ o ~ ' w ~ z ~ cn Q N
~ r' 1 ~ ~ ~'Q w w ~ U ~ m z ° y
o i ~ r~'~ ''I 1, ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ~i U O Q W Z ~ Q ~ J 2 p
W o v I- Q ~
,y n ! 1 ~ I J J I- ~ V W Q Q U w = ~ U „ „
_ . ~ f ~ O ~ ~
i Z ~ ~ w w m r W - J z m
r. ~F r I ~ ~ ! o r Z ~ W~ m o m o ! r J W w w
1 r~ ~ ;y ~ r i ~ W ~ ~ J z z Y W ~ WO ~ J O 3 U
~ ~ti w r Z O ~ p~ ~ Q w n' ~ - ~ (n p Q w i z Q
~ ~ i\ , ~ I' ~ J / ~ Q d ~ Z Z I o o U
I t i ~ ~ lr_ r I / ~ O ~ Q O Q (n ° i ~ W Z I- ~ Z
J` ~ w Z O U / ~ I- ~t N ~
R . J 3a O p0 o - O Z U Z ~ w~ Q
~ ! r F ~ r Q O p ~ ~ r' ~ c0 O ~ m
'Q . o F- r- U U N Q~ W w ~ ; Z U ~ ~ ~ Z ~
~ O W N 00 O Q _ - O p J p ~ - W ~
~ ' : ~ , ~ r1\ : ~ I ~ ~ w~~ ~ O~ W W W ~ WI-
J ~ ~ ~ 1 (n (n Q (Il Q ! O ~ m~ J
I ~ - ~ ra I O O W O Z J ~ ~ J ~ I- fn J W Q m J
O O W O O (n J W
~ ~ - Q O = J ~ X O . ( ~ ~ ~ Ul 1.~. ~ W O = Z Z
~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ `1 r o I 2 ti~~ ~ I I ~ / ! W (n W Q
I I , ~ , y , ~ . h ~ W
I ~ Q~ 1 r ~ Z ~ ~ i~ , W ~ ~
I W ~ - . I I I . i / ~:~1 ! ~ W ~ \ J
J I l / 1 ! G ~~~~I O m O O ;
i ~~p L , O O
- I ~ vl' I ~_f pl . ti w ~ z ~t
I I ) J Z Z z
I ry ~ d PL _ - - - f, 1 ~ w Z w _ _ r
I . _ ~ 3 O O > w
I I ~ p1. Z I - _ NIISIX3 o c~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ O Ow O
/ w~. I - i. - _ cn z _ ~1-I -H L~ W LL I a
r _ _ ~ o a - .1 I I ~ ~ ~ > Z w > (n (n w (n
Q J a~ ~ I w O ~ i - r ~ / m ~Z J WW J W W~ W
W ~ n. w I W Z W ~ ~ (n ~ Q~
~ I ~ ~ ~ i~ I ~ ~w ~ O O O I w~ H w O J
0 00 ~ LL m ~ ~ w Q ~ (n (n Q Q Z
m , ~ i I o ~ _ 3 3 W W p W
~ ------I Z~ - - - I ! p p Z p ~ i _
~ I iW i I I ~ I I ~J ~ h cI~ Q
- 111 V ~
~ I ~ ~ I i r- N ~ !
_ - I I I ~ I ! ii I
' cv ~ O Z
(l~l) ,l=„l ~3ltlJS BO~LI t0/Cl/l~ ISNMb'a1S ~A8 031103 OMO'bllHS-tllb\ON00\ZBl6Z\b9861\~l OVO\l2lAS21VH~

~ `~G~EYT
O 6 ~0~
Y SITE W
~ a o U ~ O 3 Q
~ p ~ F-I-
Q ? H j C7 A v ~ ~ j ~ / ~ry A ~ EX PL=
} p ~~ti 28.0 ° ,
N, TRYON ST. w ~ s /
WSJ Q ~ i ~ A ~ ~
/ ~ F~ A~ 4 ~i
VICINTY MAP N.T.S. 1 p ~ 4' 6~ ~ 0
/ / / ~3 N /F / ~
N/F CAESARS FORGE ASSOC. / ~R, C5 CAESARS FORGE AS~OC, ~
DB 4590 PG 106 _ Taxy 089-035-05 1 DB 4590 PG 06 / vv
3 % TAX 089-035-05 w # ~
/ ' r~ / e j ~
~ / / 6~.
~ ` ti ~ / / I ~ EX PL= / h
/ / i ~ ( ~ % q / 21,5 / ~ q ~
~ ~ ! N/F 24.2 ,
~ ( CAE$ARS FORGE ASSOC. J ~ D8 4590 PG 106 ~3? ~u ~
TA%y 089-035-05 / 15 Qv !r ~ Q~ 6.6 F /
N 'i, \ / j N
i~ A a lQ k , , i Q 40.0' A ~ ~
W
•s. l ,i'
N F ~ / PR PL=56,7' ' ~ ~ RD ~ v1EW , -
~,r..~ ;a~F~ ~ \ \ a-: L&J FAMILY ' .175.4 RING ~ 0 R Pl- SP
~ D PARTNERSHIP LP '9' P _ 75.4 F~ . R,1 X Pl-1
rwR V G` IE _ c-,~~ ~ ,092 IN t'`:. i\ SpR m>~ 975 p 2s,s, E ~ - . DB 12457 PG ~ . ~ ~
1 ~ s 0 D 2 TAX 089-014-47 ,o S2. ~ - -a~ R ~
N/F I ~ , '~ECK),ENA-as. - - I -i Om ~ t . + a ~ r= ~ • ~ f N F F /
FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP f`:~ pe 1 Bl1Rr;"' N F ~4 o N .a O c. 2 ~ ~ p ~ rn N/F LdtJ r _ 1774 C~NFY r ~ ' ~ m i a m ~ r~1 f DOW RENTALS LLC + ~ `y1 A~ EX PL= M ~ UNKNOWN
OB 12457 PG 975 j,' ` Ax/ 08 , ~ 31p MECKIENBURG COON' N p DmDt x m~ Nm ~wm 7 882 TAXM 089-014-47 ~'^-;--24J w£E 9 014_13,, i ~DB 12026 PG 236 . N~; x ~ X09 $~.4 1 vy DB 68fi PG r N/F -~N~GR TAx 099 015-01' p °p OD ~ p rn a e p G1 p TAX/ 089-022-01 ~ 4; ~o ;
I D ST ~ r ~ ND plv~ I y2 j ~ ~ ~ECK~@N - ~l i' 240 WELLINGFOf2D ST~~: I m u? ~ m rn o m Ym N Opo Z ~ 3o.a A,~ DB PG 9 a 'ai ~ 5,-.~ - - S ~ - -
. r,-.•-,; ~8 1190 )BpRG ~OUNiY-~~ - QpA ~rn2 Nip ~ ' qYN 039_ 241 r-_- opm N(~ ~ti• ~ n _ ~ -I ~ TAX# 089 015 03
~ ~ ~..-N J I OI4_12.. .i ti 4~ NAD ~Q7 ~ ~Fj,p~ . ~ I ~ 1 ~ Cl V N 1~ a ~ ~ _ ~ 220 WELLINGFORD ST
~ - o E~IrieNB~R ~ --1 ~ N/E .,:,Irq+ s~~~ ~ / ~ ~ ie 11891 p,~ COUNTY " ~ IAECKLENBURG COUNTY:+ #0 I,pGS~ Z . ~ ~ _ rn ~ .a ~ `r'.I - 5.4 rnx
kx ~ i DB 119J7 PG 629_ ~ B9 CS'I' ~ N,~ ~CUNOF I 1 TAx4 089-015-02 - ,1 JS~ . + ~ • . Q - EX PL-17 w p _ ~ ~
• ~ BECK ' _ _ORD Si _ ; ~ . 228 WELLINGFORD ST r, j ~/9 "'""'.+M~` N/F ti p ~ ~E 30.0 , " N - i
j D6' I j ENBURC N I JC PATTERSON 907 P °.,~ouNiY ~ - ,...-«x„^...r- /F _ DB 10531 PG 001 t TAk,Y 08 I3J ~ UNKNO'fM 5 I TAX 069-022-02 ~0 ° X ~ ~
N ~ - IN01q~1p I CTg2k d~ X015-03 ~ i /F ; R ~ 5u~u1 069- •%a n ~
, ALVIN BOND ' ~ LItt~2 220~v1ELL1N~~D ST N~ DB 10347 PG 440 6 ' PEARL 1. STANBAgt I C'' ~ % =175.4 C"' a ~ a EX FL , r I
TA%~ 089-014 17 N 4 DB 3876 PG 725 r I - BAU /F ~ TAXI 089-015-14 I Q I ~ ° Oi •~Q~ k rn W I
CpU R~ EST a m ~ / F,~ Q W u ~
2 i 84gg PG s~f [JMITEp f~c ~~.~„221 ~189~014_09 aph WM~ d oti' ti °2 pR o ; ,E - d
1 'N~`-_ ° uNGFG4~9 Si o a o Y a ~n I e~ 1 MECKCE 1 '=p~ ti 9q p o~ Pl~~ j q _ W ~
~ D NBURr- 3 a ~ y I ~ ~ B Iz18sPr~ COONIY~ 1 N~ a~ aim Q'' 'iAX/ Od ~ S)5 JOHN WADE FEIMSTER z..~, m„o Q Q~ A ~ -
~ ;--..,_211 9 014_ DB 1551 PG 528 ~smx e~ t ME ..RD~i TAXI 089-015-04 Zzc~ a - t • BAUCOM REAL ESTATE LIMITED + ~ ~ ~ DB 8486 PG 675
- ~ `KEENg ~ I
V DB 12 uRC " iq , 5~9 pC COUNTY _l 1 1 I ' 1 T9'Ogg-01 D53 ~11 Q 1 :~i:._ TAX# 089-014-09
V [ IN 4 OI ~y Q N /F ~F 1~R~ ~`4 Ol MECkIEN 221 WELLINGFORD ST ~ / ry J:
~ ,~'~~B 1213 Bp~C ~OUNiY~~~ ~ I ~ 9,089'01 9b4 ~ 1 I t [1~•~ ~ r3 •a. ~ Y k ~
N,F R°6 ` Z ~ OLLOWAY r N /F
M ~ 1~ H ECKIENB - - Q ~~'OB.118 .URr_C~ a Q j •
~ , , -~°rAx~osy~PG-elrrY`- PR PL= 014, W I • QV GREEN GARDENS INC PR PL= DB 3192 PG 518 -
N ~ ~:N IN ~ ~ I 30,6' GREEN GARDENS INC. ~'''~ECK '~p-, r'~'~' 1 I 30,6 of - ~
DB 3192 PG 518 i ' 106 IIe~~BURgC4UNi I TA%~ 089-014-15 ~ s' iAX,i 089 PG 849 : Y ' - 14-15 TAX# 089 0 N ur
1 µFIUN Ol4_04 z~ ry GF ,1 J a
~~N ~ - - I ~BJ?.~ ~uRC .GOU - - - - x k HE ~ RSHEY ST
I i iAkj G28 FG 3~8 NrY~' HE - _ 14y 89,014_ 17 RSHEY
' ; N ~1~N F-, DJ ~ - ST _ _ _ "BECK ~ - _ _ _ - ~ ;;-r,., I- - PROPERTY OWNED BY
DB CEN@URG 1 - - _ _ 'iAk 1589pG ~ OUNiY<~~ _ ~ - ~ MECKLENBURG COUNTY
45 d O8g_Oi 30 1 _ ~ 4_0 - I p PT'~~LLP! F 2 c' _ - - t F
AI ECk ?J TENBUR ~ ` PR PERTY LINE ~ EXISTING 0 m ~
,.;.`De 1197? pCG3~UUNrYf ) t,,,~141 NWT 89-014 01 ! ' i v EX Pl~ , ~ - -
d~~ f ~T~x I I ~ _ PR P _ 14g,g EXISTING STREET RIGHT OF WAY II - _ L_290.4_ q
I -
~ 7 ~i ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION
,r , / • ~
~ ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED ~ z I a N/F NOW OR FORMERLY
h - PARCEL AREA o / a' W r
~ 1 _'------_J 1 QI ~ N ~j ~ EX PL=100.0 LENGTH OF EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
x I W N ID No. AREA h•
U I N/F ~ GREEN GARDENS INC Q' W GREEN GARDENS INC 0 Q~.,' DB 3192 PG 518 NI • o ' PR PL=100.0' LENGTH OF PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
p, DB 3192 PC 518 ~ ~ Taxi os9-o,4-15 ~ 1 5.93 ACRES PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION W Q I TA%~ 089-014-15 1 Q I ~o ' • N
~ ' ~ A RES I z o. 2 0,83 C Q~~ ~ R=100,0' RADIUS OF CURVE
~ ~ • a
~ , 3 1,54 ACRES ~~~~~?k+~j PROPERTY OWNED BY i r -I ; 1 N RG COUNTY r MECKLE BU k ~ PR PL= W ~
I 4 0.31 ACRES I ~ ~s.s' NOTE: PROPERTY LINES, LENGTHS AND
I ~f RADII ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY p~
' I 0.94 ACRES 5 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE i I I ` ' R PL-228.2 , ~
I ~ ' 6 0.28 ACRES ~ 9~;
J \ ~ a1sT• E - f ' - ACRES EXISTING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTAL- 9 83 N F / ~
- / GREEN GARDENS INC
DB 3192 PG 518 T IS TO COMBINE ALL PURPOSE OF THIS PLA THE
' I I EXISTING STREAM I I / - - U ~ TAX# 089 014 15
v ~ N R WILL BE AC UIRED V E 0 Q Q PARCELS THAT HA E BE
I I I I ' EXISTING BUILDING N OUNTY. NO COMPLETE BY MECKLE BURG C
L_J
EEN PERFORMED. OUNDARY SURVEY HAS B B EX PL=460.9' /
- _ _ N/F NOW OR FORMERLY - -
COMPOSITE SURVEY OF
N• TRYON N. T PARCEL INDENTIFICATION FOR RYON ST
ST
- - - - - - _ _ TTLE SUGAR CREEK UPPER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL ~
RESTORATION PROJECT LAND PARCEL PURCHASE

SURVEY FOR:
NBURG COUNTY STORM WATER SERVICES MECKLE
100' 0 lOD' z00'
DRAWN BYE
GIG SEPT, 2001 A CAMP BYE
1"= 100'
SURVEYING ' JTW TOWNSHIP. REVISION #1
CHARLOTTE 4555 HIGHWAY 49
HARRISBURG, N.C. 28075 PROJECT NUMBER MECKLENBURG CDM#19864 29162
rATE1 PHONE: [phone] MSCAD3.1:
NORTH CAROLINA FAX: [phone] SUGAR/PARCELS

% \ / / \
~v ~ - _ \ i~~~
/ . ~U1W
i 'f ~ ~ Z W W N
_ ~j r / w?-O m_F-N Z ~t
~ r i,. w ~ ~ - o~ ~ Z~~N W~ N ~ ~
f to ~ ~ J
I . ' - I ~ ~ ~ o I W~ ~ W Z ~ ~ w~ ~ pp I- Y V1 O U (D ~
- I I__ ; I . _ _ I I _ _ - ~ ~ ~ U / z ~ ~ Z M a~ Qom' ~ -OO W~tr Mrs
~ ~ ~~U ~WF-- ~ W ~ H W~~} w
• ~ ~ ~
I - ~ y W ~Q WQ ~"~O a zoo I-~H ~ f~ a
~ ` - PL _ - = ~ O ~ ~ ~ J u
.i ~ ono . ~ J~Z~ X
L _ _ _ _ P _ ~ _ - I , J . a d r y ~ Q I Q ~ O y 2
J 4, - _ ~ - S a l- O ~ ~ 2~ U
~ - _ ~~S U ~ cn ~ ~
_ ~ ~ $S . i _ SS SS _ / ~ y rn ;y ~ ~ U
~ S - - y r ~ ~
" - ~-SAS V1 I . _ ~ SS _,~-5&, PL ' ~V U ~
_ SS SS _ •Q ~ ~ ~ w
- • 1 )d ~ ~ ~ w
/SS ` pL I I SS ~ 1~1 ~ ~ y z ~ I ) y ~ a~ Z
1" / - ~ 4 _ PL > - v- i / r ~ w ~ U~ ;y I ~
~y / ~ w
` ~ _ ~ O ` / y ii ~ ~ ~ / y ~ o
/ / ~
I - ~ ~ W I - 0 j / ~ v ,y /
, , J / y Q. ~ p ~ ; ` / L' / w
I v i "I ~ ~ ~ yy > C~ ~ / O
I ~ I y i ~ \ ~ , ~ ~ a
. ~ _ ~ I ~ i y a } / ~ Q ~ Q
~ i ~ / y y , Q ~ /
I N t ~ / FAQ ~
- H . i v: / yy / ~
l/~. yr9 i
U.P , W
' o, Z
y / 0 ~ i 1~ .
A` y ~ F"
y O (n ~ ~ V .Q V W
i y ~ ~ U / y to > r N ~
/'v~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~J I ~ W
~j`C f - 1Q QJOn / N W n ~1 U
l ~ Z ~ ~ - yy W / / Z ~
(vJ / ~ . % ~ \ _ ~ 0 ~ c~ 1 ~ Qw i ~ aJW 1 0
y r ~ d' W 1 y , Z ~ ~ ~ V
/ / ,v ~o ~ y Ww~ 1l; ~ ~W d.
_ - ~ ,0 ti j N y ~ ~ ~ ;'~.b aQO 1 ~Q w N ,1
i / Q ~ ~ ~ , 03m 0 X30 ~ ~ 1,,j y z / y , LL
~ , _ _ % ~ ~1 , o ~ 0 0 y O U O U U
~V ~ 5~ ~ , / y r1 1 ~ ~ ~ C~ r~
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r yy .........r
~ ~ 1 ~ m~ m ~ r r _ z~ z z
i ti~ \ ' / Z ~ h yy~ ~ ~i~ 1 1 JO J J~
.1 ~ ~
~ W W ~ ~ t- ' 1 'a _ ss-~'""s U Q U ~ U ' a I y ~ _$S ~ ~U ~U~UZ
y ~ i I I ss > ~ I s
tii Q - i (3 ~ Q I 1 - -P~ ,F RD
` )d i 1 W c~ I VIE _ _ NG - RI
- - I PL ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ AA++ I P r° i ~
~ ~ ~ /SS S , , SS W I I ~k o ~
S i I ~ 0 >
~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ PL - ' - ~ ~ - - ..r. Q Q
i 1~ ~ r ~ m w - - 1 _ _ r. 1 W
~ ~ ~ ti PLC ~ i ' ti PL ~ ~ ~ L - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tr o
~ / ~ , ~ ~ ~ . - ~ o ~ ~ ~
l` ~ % i / ~ I ~ LL m ~ ~ ~ '1 i _
1 W ~ ~
I J ~ ~
Q ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~r \ ~ ~ 6' ~ ~ y ~ 1 .J I , I ~
_ - `~~1 / y 0 . L
i J ~ ~ Qa I I,~ J ~ 0 'Q N
\ ~ a.. Q V J ~ Q
i ~ i ~ ~ ~ : 1 .;S ~ rl N J
:~1~ ..0 A+ O W 0 1 0 Q 2
TT O V/ W .•~O~ M rnrn M V/ 1 / LL a
~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ . ''riti•:u}r:ii'r°i'rri. Q s.f~: Fi;3itircii• r s o_~ ~ 1
\ ~ ! ' ~ Q 9 Z . 2 W w U,_, /l,,,,
_ ~ ~ ~C~ .iLJ~ir::i••iiii•:i~'r: J :G•• w 1W s a J W ~ Js•:::iari::i:c::•rtii'r::• tir.:::cr:?s•'r'r:t:°i•:{•:tiieii ~ie:•;:^
~ - `5 ~ 'y .etiiE::i'ri}ri:rtii:i:'r •:Wr::•::{:a°:ii: :Wi ~ ~ N
\~p Z AAl1 1 w W
'O;: i ' o n ti~E o~~ Q a ~ Q Z
Il m'r'rirE:ti.i::tit'ri i ~ ,~y :o;•; w 1 ~ i 3;rm::r:•Eirr::{titi:::tiieiis'rrr:iai•::'r::iEii:?:iii'r::rii:tii::: J > W a ` n.
~ o .
_ ~ i. 1 . L
is ~ Q _ , ~V L P
J 0 F, ~ i
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q r ~ ~ 1 W 4 W
~ , E - , _ _ RD - . , Gp _ • ~ .
` ~ _ L
- ~ r 1 - l • -
_ ~ - - - . . , M . EA
- - ~ ;.fir: ~1 ' Q _ d - ~ • • STR - _ _ _ L L . •
/~~y;; NG reek : ~ ~ ~,ttl ss
_ L , ~ - -
_ - ' ~ ~ SS = ~ L . - ,
r Q _ _ _ ~ p~ _ Q SS
by / - - - -i
/ ~ i, PL O , r. , - _
~ ' M o o ' ~ ~ ~ ~P, S - ~ ~ ~ l'
~ _ 1,~~ , rn , ~E / ~ i i' / ~ ~ - i
~ G ~ s ~.,.5 :,'.~',,y ~.L,,.,,~ ,-t% S , r _ ~ i ~ ? ~
w 0 w ~ ~ , 1 ~
f Q W ~ / ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ y'~V~ ~ O y,r to Z W w I ' r Q J I ~ i, i
~ ~ , ~ 3 m ~5. 1 / i I L
J ~ 1 ~
O~ w ,
- E ~Li. 1~ ;yy s~, ;'y - ' ' ' i V~
~1tJ :r E ` E / TR ~ ~ 1 I
\ ~ ~ ~y,y 4,~ ~ r' ~ o ~ 0~ ~ 1 Q`' ~ 5~~ . - ~ ~ o „ o I ~i - - L
~ . ; ~ ~l J IL 1 ~ • . ~ i ~ ~ I - rn 1 O
s ~ ' S ` 0 0 0 = ~ ~ .....r ~ ~ 4 I ~ r
I 0 >~w > ~ ~ ~ ! 'A
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w J ~ a J W w ~ S`' ~ ~ti , ~ ~ . I w J J W ! I
; Q Y~ ~ ~,ly w Z ~ J I ! ~ . ~ ~
Q ~ r , ~ W ~ o o ~ C~ ~ s f= ~ ~ I ~
~ J H ~ ~ ~ IL a Q ~.,y O 0 3 m ~o a .m
ti~' S / h~. s q f. ! ~ ._._.r--~
- ~ _ - W ~ , i J a
~~.y iQ '
Q Q 'r ~ ~
~0 v I ~ w J 1 ~ !
o ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r I o lU a O
~J°~ ~~I ~ ~ o I 1, o Z p r` ;~I n ~4 ~ a _
_ I r, 0 > ~ ~ r ~Q z o I
v W J `I ~ a Jw rV ~ Q ~ i ~
w t• ri z ~ , ~ ~ N ~o,~ . i !
,--J o W ~ o _ _~,l ~ o , ~ ~ r. 2 ~ W w ~ ~ e IZ a ~ o ! ~ ~ z
o~' o J a~~ I o~ol~ W o 03m : I; I z0 m r 1 ' ~ ~
M„ ~ > ~ 1, ' W W - o Z Z
~ ~ I : ~ 0 > W V~ 2 O ~ ~ I'vNi` W J ~ r 1 a J w (~o: W I ~ W~ J W
Q J ,~o z ~ Z ~ m ~Q / Ul ~
m :o;;~ - rn ;o ~ Ww; r~ ° v N Q' :I ~ z N ~ N
W ~ ~ . ~ o ::o . I , • I ;o ; a I~ ~ V r Q o ~ o, k, ~ _ ..o.:: ~ . a o Q ,o ~ I ~ C ~ J ~ W U N M
0 0 i, ,i ~ •o.: W W ~ p ~ d' Q Q W ~ na o ~ U ~ ~o r.
m H _ _ O ~ rW lL N Z n r ~ DWI O W _ Q NN " o ~ ~ Z ~ W C~
I~ I ~ o r W ~ ~ 1 ~ - n Q' ~ N x" ~ HERS Q Q ~ HEY ST~ a ~ cn cn v
~ r r 1 ,'y' ~ ~ ~ o o
0 ~ Wp ~1
~ - v r a ~:1 I ~ W f U Z Z Z or lU 1 ~ W - - - O O o ~ N
I; \j . : . ~ ~ ~ V . wT~IT........ ....1.... \ ~ y r , . I 1 ~ a \ V i 4 ~ ~ a w ~Z M i o c_n c_n (_n a r .
J Q ~ ~ ; J W . . 0 0 ~ ~ X X X ~ ~ o= °
. . ~ ~ W W W d ~ ~ ~ " r o c° u
~ r l ~ ~ ~ r ~ = I ~ : r
1 `I r
~ ,y,~ r j. ~ I ! r ~ z ~ r
~ r ;a I i4 ~ ' Q ~ I
1 r 1 _ ~ I ~ ~ f ~ , ~ ~
. _ 1 N _ . ~ d y
r - - J y I I ~ (~J W I
ZO ~ ~ / ~r o ~ ~ Z
s C . r i . _ . ti ~ ...i' _ ,r ~ ~ ~ LJ.1 W Z Q ~ p ~ I 2 I-
~ ~ ' . r ld ~ _ . . ~ ~ - ¢ i cn F--
~ _ Q Q
~ l 1 ld j . j r r > ~ H i O W r ~ Z w y
1 ti r d y . . i- . ~ ~ w w Z
- - - o - o w w 0
_ 1 N ~ ~ . - ~ 1 p _ e _ , - o ~ -
- r ~ . .....:'r > ~ r Q ~
- Q W ~ / ~ ~ o ~ ~
J ~ ~ h r ~ sNro~~ne m W ~ ~ ~ ~ 9NI1 SlX3 w ~ o ~ ' w ~ z ~ cn Q N
~ r' 1 ~ ~ ~'Q w w ~ U ~ m z ° y
o i ~ r~'~ ''I 1, ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ~i U O Q W Z ~ Q ~ J 2 p
W o v I- Q ~
,y n ! 1 ~ I J J I- ~ V W Q Q U w = ~ U „ „
_ . ~ f ~ O ~ ~
i Z ~ ~ w w m r W - J z m
r. ~F r I ~ ~ ! o r Z ~ W~ m o m o ! r J W w w
1 r~ ~ ;y ~ r i ~ W ~ ~ J z z Y W ~ WO ~ J O 3 U
~ ~ti w r Z O ~ p~ ~ Q w n' ~ - ~ (n p Q w i z Q
~ ~ i\ , ~ I' ~ J / ~ Q d ~ Z Z I o o U
I t i ~ ~ lr_ r I / ~ O ~ Q O Q (n ° i ~ W Z I- ~ Z
J` ~ w Z O U / ~ I- ~t N ~
R . J 3a O p0 o - O Z U Z ~ w~ Q
~ ! r F ~ r Q O p ~ ~ r' ~ c0 O ~ m
'Q . o F- r- U U N Q~ W w ~ ; Z U ~ ~ ~ Z ~
~ O W N 00 O Q _ - O p J p ~ - W ~
~ ' : ~ , ~ r1\ : ~ I ~ ~ w~~ ~ O~ W W W ~ WI-
J ~ ~ ~ 1 (n (n Q (Il Q ! O ~ m~ J
I ~ - ~ ra I O O W O Z J ~ ~ J ~ I- fn J W Q m J
O O W O O (n J W
~ ~ - Q O = J ~ X O . ( ~ ~ ~ Ul 1.~. ~ W O = Z Z
~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ `1 r o I 2 ti~~ ~ I I ~ / ! W (n W Q
I I , ~ , y , ~ . h ~ W
I ~ Q~ 1 r ~ Z ~ ~ i~ , W ~ ~
I W ~ - . I I I . i / ~:~1 ! ~ W ~ \ J
J I l / 1 ! G ~~~~I O m O O ;
i ~~p L , O O
- I ~ vl' I ~_f pl . ti w ~ z ~t
I I ) J Z Z z
I ry ~ d PL _ - - - f, 1 ~ w Z w _ _ r
I . _ ~ 3 O O > w
I I ~ p1. Z I - _ NIISIX3 o c~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ O Ow O
/ w~. I - i. - _ cn z _ ~1-I -H L~ W LL I a
r _ _ ~ o a - .1 I I ~ ~ ~ > Z w > (n (n w (n
Q J a~ ~ I w O ~ i - r ~ / m ~Z J WW J W W~ W
W ~ n. w I W Z W ~ ~ (n ~ Q~
~ I ~ ~ ~ i~ I ~ ~w ~ O O O I w~ H w O J
0 00 ~ LL m ~ ~ w Q ~ (n (n Q Q Z
m , ~ i I o ~ _ 3 3 W W p W
~ ------I Z~ - - - I ! p p Z p ~ i _
~ I iW i I I ~ I I ~J ~ h cI~ Q
- 111 V ~
~ I ~ ~ I i r- N ~ !
_ - I I I ~ I ! ii I
' cv ~ O Z
(l~l) ,l=„l ~3ltlJS BO~LI t0/Cl/l~ ISNMb'a1S ~A8 031103 OMO'bllHS-tllb\ON00\ZBl6Z\b9861\~l OVO\l2lAS21VH~

~ `~G~EYT
O 6 ~0~
Y SITE W
~ a o U ~ O 3 Q
~ p ~ F-I-
Q ? H j C7 A v ~ ~ j ~ / ~ry A ~ EX PL=
} p ~~ti 28.0 ° ,
N, TRYON ST. w ~ s /
WSJ Q ~ i ~ A ~ ~
/ ~ F~ A~ 4 ~i
VICINTY MAP N.T.S. 1 p ~ 4' 6~ ~ 0
/ / / ~3 N /F / ~
N/F CAESARS FORGE ASSOC. / ~R, C5 CAESARS FORGE AS~OC, ~
DB 4590 PG 106 _ Taxy 089-035-05 1 DB 4590 PG 06 / vv
3 % TAX 089-035-05 w # ~
/ ' r~ / e j ~
~ / / 6~.
~ ` ti ~ / / I ~ EX PL= / h
/ / i ~ ( ~ % q / 21,5 / ~ q ~
~ ~ ! N/F 24.2 ,
~ ( CAE$ARS FORGE ASSOC. J ~ D8 4590 PG 106 ~3? ~u ~
TA%y 089-035-05 / 15 Qv !r ~ Q~ 6.6 F /
N 'i, \ / j N
i~ A a lQ k , , i Q 40.0' A ~ ~
W
•s. l ,i'
N F ~ / PR PL=56,7' ' ~ ~ RD ~ v1EW , -
~,r..~ ;a~F~ ~ \ \ a-: L&J FAMILY ' .175.4 RING ~ 0 R Pl- SP
~ D PARTNERSHIP LP '9' P _ 75.4 F~ . R,1 X Pl-1
rwR V G` IE _ c-,~~ ~ ,092 IN t'`:. i\ SpR m>~ 975 p 2s,s, E ~ - . DB 12457 PG ~ . ~ ~
1 ~ s 0 D 2 TAX 089-014-47 ,o S2. ~ - -a~ R ~
N/F I ~ , '~ECK),ENA-as. - - I -i Om ~ t . + a ~ r= ~ • ~ f N F F /
FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP f`:~ pe 1 Bl1Rr;"' N F ~4 o N .a O c. 2 ~ ~ p ~ rn N/F LdtJ r _ 1774 C~NFY r ~ ' ~ m i a m ~ r~1 f DOW RENTALS LLC + ~ `y1 A~ EX PL= M ~ UNKNOWN
OB 12457 PG 975 j,' ` Ax/ 08 , ~ 31p MECKIENBURG COON' N p DmDt x m~ Nm ~wm 7 882 TAXM 089-014-47 ~'^-;--24J w£E 9 014_13,, i ~DB 12026 PG 236 . N~; x ~ X09 $~.4 1 vy DB 68fi PG r N/F -~N~GR TAx 099 015-01' p °p OD ~ p rn a e p G1 p TAX/ 089-022-01 ~ 4; ~o ;
I D ST ~ r ~ ND plv~ I y2 j ~ ~ ~ECK~@N - ~l i' 240 WELLINGFOf2D ST~~: I m u? ~ m rn o m Ym N Opo Z ~ 3o.a A,~ DB PG 9 a 'ai ~ 5,-.~ - - S ~ - -
. r,-.•-,; ~8 1190 )BpRG ~OUNiY-~~ - QpA ~rn2 Nip ~ ' qYN 039_ 241 r-_- opm N(~ ~ti• ~ n _ ~ -I ~ TAX# 089 015 03
~ ~ ~..-N J I OI4_12.. .i ti 4~ NAD ~Q7 ~ ~Fj,p~ . ~ I ~ 1 ~ Cl V N 1~ a ~ ~ _ ~ 220 WELLINGFORD ST
~ - o E~IrieNB~R ~ --1 ~ N/E .,:,Irq+ s~~~ ~ / ~ ~ ie 11891 p,~ COUNTY " ~ IAECKLENBURG COUNTY:+ #0 I,pGS~ Z . ~ ~ _ rn ~ .a ~ `r'.I - 5.4 rnx
kx ~ i DB 119J7 PG 629_ ~ B9 CS'I' ~ N,~ ~CUNOF I 1 TAx4 089-015-02 - ,1 JS~ . + ~ • . Q - EX PL-17 w p _ ~ ~
• ~ BECK ' _ _ORD Si _ ; ~ . 228 WELLINGFORD ST r, j ~/9 "'""'.+M~` N/F ti p ~ ~E 30.0 , " N - i
j D6' I j ENBURC N I JC PATTERSON 907 P °.,~ouNiY ~ - ,...-«x„^...r- /F _ DB 10531 PG 001 t TAk,Y 08 I3J ~ UNKNO'fM 5 I TAX 069-022-02 ~0 ° X ~ ~
N ~ - IN01q~1p I CTg2k d~ X015-03 ~ i /F ; R ~ 5u~u1 069- •%a n ~
, ALVIN BOND ' ~ LItt~2 220~v1ELL1N~~D ST N~ DB 10347 PG 440 6 ' PEARL 1. STANBAgt I C'' ~ % =175.4 C"' a ~ a EX FL , r I
TA%~ 089-014 17 N 4 DB 3876 PG 725 r I - BAU /F ~ TAXI 089-015-14 I Q I ~ ° Oi •~Q~ k rn W I
CpU R~ EST a m ~ / F,~ Q W u ~
2 i 84gg PG s~f [JMITEp f~c ~~.~„221 ~189~014_09 aph WM~ d oti' ti °2 pR o ; ,E - d
1 'N~`-_ ° uNGFG4~9 Si o a o Y a ~n I e~ 1 MECKCE 1 '=p~ ti 9q p o~ Pl~~ j q _ W ~
~ D NBURr- 3 a ~ y I ~ ~ B Iz18sPr~ COONIY~ 1 N~ a~ aim Q'' 'iAX/ Od ~ S)5 JOHN WADE FEIMSTER z..~, m„o Q Q~ A ~ -
~ ;--..,_211 9 014_ DB 1551 PG 528 ~smx e~ t ME ..RD~i TAXI 089-015-04 Zzc~ a - t • BAUCOM REAL ESTATE LIMITED + ~ ~ ~ DB 8486 PG 675
- ~ `KEENg ~ I
V DB 12 uRC " iq , 5~9 pC COUNTY _l 1 1 I ' 1 T9'Ogg-01 D53 ~11 Q 1 :~i:._ TAX# 089-014-09
V [ IN 4 OI ~y Q N /F ~F 1~R~ ~`4 Ol MECkIEN 221 WELLINGFORD ST ~ / ry J:
~ ,~'~~B 1213 Bp~C ~OUNiY~~~ ~ I ~ 9,089'01 9b4 ~ 1 I t [1~•~ ~ r3 •a. ~ Y k ~
N,F R°6 ` Z ~ OLLOWAY r N /F
M ~ 1~ H ECKIENB - - Q ~~'OB.118 .URr_C~ a Q j •
~ , , -~°rAx~osy~PG-elrrY`- PR PL= 014, W I • QV GREEN GARDENS INC PR PL= DB 3192 PG 518 -
N ~ ~:N IN ~ ~ I 30,6' GREEN GARDENS INC. ~'''~ECK '~p-, r'~'~' 1 I 30,6 of - ~
DB 3192 PG 518 i ' 106 IIe~~BURgC4UNi I TA%~ 089-014-15 ~ s' iAX,i 089 PG 849 : Y ' - 14-15 TAX# 089 0 N ur
1 µFIUN Ol4_04 z~ ry GF ,1 J a
~~N ~ - - I ~BJ?.~ ~uRC .GOU - - - - x k HE ~ RSHEY ST
I i iAkj G28 FG 3~8 NrY~' HE - _ 14y 89,014_ 17 RSHEY
' ; N ~1~N F-, DJ ~ - ST _ _ _ "BECK ~ - _ _ _ - ~ ;;-r,., I- - PROPERTY OWNED BY
DB CEN@URG 1 - - _ _ 'iAk 1589pG ~ OUNiY<~~ _ ~ - ~ MECKLENBURG COUNTY
45 d O8g_Oi 30 1 _ ~ 4_0 - I p PT'~~LLP! F 2 c' _ - - t F
AI ECk ?J TENBUR ~ ` PR PERTY LINE ~ EXISTING 0 m ~
,.;.`De 1197? pCG3~UUNrYf ) t,,,~141 NWT 89-014 01 ! ' i v EX Pl~ , ~ - -
d~~ f ~T~x I I ~ _ PR P _ 14g,g EXISTING STREET RIGHT OF WAY II - _ L_290.4_ q
I -
~ 7 ~i ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION
,r , / • ~
~ ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED ~ z I a N/F NOW OR FORMERLY
h - PARCEL AREA o / a' W r
~ 1 _'------_J 1 QI ~ N ~j ~ EX PL=100.0 LENGTH OF EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
x I W N ID No. AREA h•
U I N/F ~ GREEN GARDENS INC Q' W GREEN GARDENS INC 0 Q~.,' DB 3192 PG 518 NI • o ' PR PL=100.0' LENGTH OF PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
p, DB 3192 PC 518 ~ ~ Taxi os9-o,4-15 ~ 1 5.93 ACRES PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION W Q I TA%~ 089-014-15 1 Q I ~o ' • N
~ ' ~ A RES I z o. 2 0,83 C Q~~ ~ R=100,0' RADIUS OF CURVE
~ ~ • a
~ , 3 1,54 ACRES ~~~~~?k+~j PROPERTY OWNED BY i r -I ; 1 N RG COUNTY r MECKLE BU k ~ PR PL= W ~
I 4 0.31 ACRES I ~ ~s.s' NOTE: PROPERTY LINES, LENGTHS AND
I ~f RADII ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY p~
' I 0.94 ACRES 5 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE i I I ` ' R PL-228.2 , ~
I ~ ' 6 0.28 ACRES ~ 9~;
J \ ~ a1sT• E - f ' - ACRES EXISTING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTAL- 9 83 N F / ~
- / GREEN GARDENS INC
DB 3192 PG 518 T IS TO COMBINE ALL PURPOSE OF THIS PLA THE
' I I EXISTING STREAM I I / - - U ~ TAX# 089 014 15
v ~ N R WILL BE AC UIRED V E 0 Q Q PARCELS THAT HA E BE
I I I I ' EXISTING BUILDING N OUNTY. NO COMPLETE BY MECKLE BURG C
L_J
EEN PERFORMED. OUNDARY SURVEY HAS B B EX PL=460.9' /
- _ _ N/F NOW OR FORMERLY - -
COMPOSITE SURVEY OF
N• TRYON N. T PARCEL INDENTIFICATION FOR RYON ST
ST
- - - - - - _ _ TTLE SUGAR CREEK UPPER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL ~
RESTORATION PROJECT LAND PARCEL PURCHASE

SURVEY FOR:
NBURG COUNTY STORM WATER SERVICES MECKLE
100' 0 lOD' z00'
DRAWN BYE
GIG SEPT, 2001 A CAMP BYE
1"= 100'
SURVEYING ' JTW TOWNSHIP. REVISION #1
CHARLOTTE 4555 HIGHWAY 49
HARRISBURG, N.C. 28075 PROJECT NUMBER MECKLENBURG CDM#19864 29162
rATE1 PHONE: [phone] MSCAD3.1:
NORTH CAROLINA FAX: [phone] SUGAR/PARCELS