20100421 Ver 1_401 Application_20100610

Letter of Transmittal
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd. *SM" Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
N.C. Division of Water Qual
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
? Shop drawings
® Copy of letter
DATE: May. 27.2010 JOB NO: 1357-10-004
ATTENTION: Mr. Ian McMillan
RE: Proposed Gaston County High School
2010042 1

® Attached ? Under separate cover via
? Prints ? Plans ? Draft
? Report
-the following items:
? Specifications
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
5 MAY.27.2010 1 Copy of Nationwide Permit Application Package
1 MAY.14.2010 2 $570.00 Check for DWQ Processing Fee
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? For approval ® For your record
? As requested ? For review and comment ?
? FORBIDS DUE: ? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Attached please find the above. Please let Dave Homans or Michael Wolfe know if you have questions Thank you.
?Ln"
JUN l 2010
yyF 1111"R WATERQft,
SIGN: ANp3TORt4MATFRR MC4
COPY TO: File, USACE, Charles Jarnagin- Gaston County Schools
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S&ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
PA IN
r1
S&ME SFG-001
(Rev. 04/04)

,'S8cME
May 27, 2010
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Stephen Chapin
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Attention: Mr. Ian McMillan
Reference: Pre-Construction Notification and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Proposed Gaston County High School
Gaston County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-10-004
Dear Mr. Chapin and Mr. McMillan:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this application for authorization of impacts to waters
of the U.S. in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (NWT) No.
39 - Commercial and Institutional Development, along with supporting documentation
for verification of the jurisdictional boundaries located within the project area. S&ME
has been retained by Gaston County Schools to provide services related to project
authorization under the NWP and corresponding North Carolina Water Quality
Certification (WQC) 3821 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The project will involve the
construction of a new high school building and associated parking areas, athletic fields,
and access roads which will result in the permanent fill of approximately 0.10 acres of
jurisdictional and approximately 285 linear feet (If) of perennial streams. In support of
this Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) we have prepared the following appendices:
• Appendix I: PCN Form and Agent Authorization Form;
• Appendix II: Figures - Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map
(Figure 2), 2005 Aerial Photograph (Figure 3), USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure
4), Approximate Waters of the U.S. Map (Figure 5);
• Appendix III: Stream and Wetland Impact Maps (Exhibits 1-4), Typical Stream
Culvert Cross Section (Exhibit 5);
• Appendix IV: Site Photographs;
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27, 2010
• Appendix V: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form, original Jurisdictional
Determination (USACE Action ID #200630288);
• Appendix VI: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine Wetland
Determination Forms, N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream
Identification Forms, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets,
• Appendix VII: Agency Correspondence; and
• Appendix VIII: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program In Lieu Fee
Program Request Form
Copies of this PCN, along with a check for the processing fee, are being provided to
DWQ for written concurrence.
The location of the project area is depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the
Belmont, N.C (1999) USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), a 2005 Aerial Photograph
(Figure 3), and the Mecklenburg County Soil Survey Map (Figure 4), included in
Appendix II.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a new high school to accommodate
student overflow at other high schools within Gaston County. The proposed project
entails the construction of an approximately 162,240 square foot school building, along
with associated athletic fields, parking, access roads and stormwater detention ponds.
The project area is approximately 110 acres, the majority of which was previously the
location of Lakewood Golf Course. In 2005, a jurisdictional delineation of the site was
performed for a different project and surveyed by Carolina Designs Group, LLC (CDG).
This delineation was approved by Steve Chapin of the USACE under Action ID No.
200630288, dated 1/25/2005; it should be noted that this date may be a typographical
error as the Action ID number dates to 2006 and the indicated expiration date of the
determination is 1/25/2011 instead of the expected 1/25/2010. A copy of the original
Jurisdictional Determination is included as a part of Appendix V.
Due to the possibility of changes in the jurisdictional boundaries on site, the potentially
insufficient boundaries of the original delineation, and uncertainty as to the expiration
date of the original delineation, it was decided to revisit the project area to verify the
boundaries depicted in the original delineation and update any areas that were
inconsistent with current conditions.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
On January 14 and 15, 2010 Mr. Joey Lawler and Mr. David Homans with S&ME visited
the project area and conducted a jurisdictional delineation to determine the location of
waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Jurisdictional boundaries previously identified by
CDG were spot checked, and in instances where ground conditions differed from the
previous delineation the updated jurisdictional boundaries were marked with flagging and
recorded using GPS units capable of sub-meter accuracy. The delineation was conducted
utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, which states that under normal
2
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27 2010
circumstances, an area must demonstrate the presence of three components to be
considered jurisdictional: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland
hydrology. Furthermore, stream assessments were conducted in accordance with DWQ
and USACE guidelines.
Field review identified four relatively permanent waters (Streams 1 through 4), four
wetlands (Wetlands A through D) and a jurisdictional open-water impoundment within
the project area. Descriptions of these features are as follows.
Wetland A is a large forested wetland heavily influenced by beaver activity; it extends off
the property to the southwest where it directly abuts a cove of the South Fork Catawba
River. Stream 1 enters the subject property along the eastern boundary and is classified
as perennial/year-round flow before it discharges into Wetland A. Much of the boundary
of Wetland A that was identified in field review was consistent with the boundaries
identified in the original CDG delineation, with the exception of the northeastern portion
of the wetland. In this area, increased beaver activity had converted areas to the western
side of the valley into wetland. To the eastern side of this valley the wetland limits had
decreased somewhat due to increased drainage associated with a non jurisdictional ditch,
and possibly also due to hydrologic alteration associated with the thick cover of privet.
The ditch draining this area was determined to be non-jurisdictional due to its lack of
natural valley, sinuosity, and geomorphology, as well as indications of a side-cast berm.
Stream 2 is located within the western central portion of the subject property and exhibits
perennial/year-round flow before it discharges into Wetland A. Streams 3 and 4 are
tributaries of Stream 2 located in the north central portion of the subject property. Both
Streams 3 and 4 were classified as perennial with year-round flow. Wetlands C and D
are forested floodplain wetlands adjacent to on-site streams. Additionally, an in-line golf
course pond was located along Stream 2. The earthen dam originally impounding this
area has been breached, though partial impoundment continues due to a beaver dam. The
reduction in water level due to the breach has resulted in the naturalization of a fringe
wetland (Wetland B) along the northern portion of the pond.
The remaining upland within the project area is made up of early successional areas
associated with the cleared areas of the former golf course and adjacent wooded slopes.
Figure 5, Appendix II, depicts the delineated area within the project area. Representative
photographs of the project area and jurisdictional features identified are included in
Appendix IV and the locations of photographs are indicated on Figure 5. An Approved
Jurisdictional Determination form was prepared and is incorporated with this PCN for
verification (Appendix V). Completed USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms,
DWQ Stream Identification Forms, and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
are included in Appendix VI.
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project will require a combined 285 if of permanent perennial stream
impacts to Stream 2 associated with two proposed culverted road crossings. The North
Drive crossing will result in approximately 42 if of permanent impact due to the
3
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27, 2010
placement of a box culvert, and the South Drive crossing will result in approximately 80
If of permanent impact due to box culvert placement. An additional 60 if (for the North
Drive crossing) and 103 if (for the South Drive crossing) of permanent impact will result
from the placement of riprap associated with inlet protection and downstream plunge
pool creation at the crossings. The installation of these plunge pools was deemed
necessary due to the fact that the predicted discharge velocity of the culvert exceeds the
limits of the NCDENR Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Since downstream energy dissipation will be required to prevent stream bed and bank
erosion that could ultimately lead to perching of the culvert, armored plunge pool
installation is proposed. It should additionally be noted that spatial constraints associated
with existing overhead utility poles, utility easements, and the location of Wetland A
forced a non-perpendicular crossing of Stream 2 at the South Drive.
Additionally, grading associated with the construction of the North Drive will result in
the permanent fill of 0.02 acres of Wetland C. Proposed grading and fill associated with
the South Drive and its tie-in to proposed parking areas will result in open water impact
to 0.08 acres of the former golf course pond.
An additional crossing of Stream 1 is proposed for the creation of an access road to the
proposed baseball field area. This crossing will be achieved through the installation of a
bottomless culvert with side walls that will be placed well upland of the top-of-bank of
Stream 1 and thus should not be considered a permanent jurisdictional impact.
Plan view drawings of the proposed project impacts and a typical culvert placement
profile are included in Appendix III. The locations of Waters of the U.S. are depicted on
the attached Figure 5 (Appendix II).
PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Protected Species
S&ME's review of potential protected species habitat entailed a literature review of
existing records obtained from federal and state sources to identify documented records
of protected species. The USFWS list of federally protected species (updated May 10,
2007) was consulted for a listing of protected species documented within Gaston County,
North Carolina. This review identified one plant species and one animal species. Listed
fauna and flora and their federal status are identified in Table 1. Explanations of rankings
are included at the end of the table.
Table 1: Federally Protected Flora and Fauna Summary
Species Federal Rank* County Status Habitat Present
Helianthus schweinitzii
E Current Yes
Schweinitz's sunflower
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA Current No
Bald eagle
" E = Endangered, BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
4
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27, 2010
As part of the literature review, S&ME also consulted the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program NCN-HP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual
Workroom and Element Occurrence (EO) Database for a listing of EO's of endangered or
threatened species within or near the project area. This review did not identify EO's
pertaining to federally protected species within a two-mile radius of the project area.
In addition to literature review, S&ME sent scoping letters to the USFWS Asheville
office and the NCNHP dated March 3, 2010 requesting additional comment on the
project. The only federally protected species for which concern was raised by either
response was Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). See Appendix VII for
copies of these response letters.
In order to address concerns regarding H. schweinitzii the project area was investigated
by S&ME biologists for the presence of this species and its supporting habitat. A large
part of the property area was disturbed open field in the location of former golf course
greens and fairways, which could be potential habitat for H. schweinitzii. A review of
these areas showed no evidence of the presence of this species; thus it is anticipated that
there will be no impact to this species due to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 3, 2010
requesting comment on the proposed project and additional information regarding
cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. As of this date no response to our
request has been received.
In the event archaeological or paleontological remains are found during the course of
project construction, and in accordance with NWP regional conditions, Construction will
be halted and USACE, SHPO, and the Office of State Archaeology will be notified.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Multiple revisions of the project design have been made in order to minimize the impacts
to jurisdictional features to all extents practicable. Earlier designs involving stream
relocation, utilization of the golf course pond as a stormwater management BMP,
different access road alignments, and different locations of athletic fields were all
abandoned in favor of the current design due to the extent of jurisdictional impacts
associated with previous design iterations. Additionally, the placement of the baseball
fields and the use of a bottomless culvert stream crossing for the access road were
decided upon specifically as measures to avoid impacts to Wetland A and Stream 1.
The proposed box culvert crossings were located so as to minimize impacts to streams
and wetlands on the property within the constraints imposed by existing utilities and
easements. Energy dissipating plunge pools were sized to the minimum extents
allowable in order to prevent scour and meet the erosion control requirements of
NCDENR Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
5
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27, 2010
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Following construction, any temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to original grade
and elevation. The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-
construction elevation contours or stream dimension, pattern or profile beyond those
described in this application. Excess material will be removed to a high ground disposal
area. The project has been designed so as not to disturb the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year floodplain.
Sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed in
order to comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. These BMPs shall
be consistent with specifications governing their proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance, as outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and approved by the local governing
authority. Furthermore, GCS is planning to implement supplemental stream turbidity
monitoring beyond required practice standards, and to monitor for possible project-
related sediment loading of the nearby cove of the South Fork of the Catawba River.
Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original
grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be
taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to
remain unaffected.
The proposed project will result in additional impervious surface which exceeds 24% for
a number of the drainage areas within the project. Accordingly, a stormwater
management plan is in the process of being submitted to the delegated authority, Gaston
County Natural Resources Department. Upon request, a copy of the stormwater
management plan can be provided once final approval has been obtained.
MITIGATION
Based on past conversations with the USACE and NCDENR and our understanding of
agency guidance, we anticipate that the proposed project will require mitigation for the
285 if of permanent impacts to perennial streams. As this project is for a public school
and the site offers opportunities for outdoors environmental education, an appropriate
measure of on-site mitigation through restoration and/or enhancement of degraded stream
channels and riparian buffers is proposed.
In concept, this restoration and / or enhancement will involve removing invasive
vegetation in the riparian areas around Streams 2, 3 and 4 upstream of the golf course
pond and / or laying back the banks on the incised sections of these channels in order to
allow access to the floodplain. The potential of this conceptual mitigation plan will be
further assessed through a pending on-site meeting with the USACE and DWQ.
Following this meeting a formal on-site mitigation plan will be developed and provided
to the USACE and DWQ.
Pre-Construction Notification/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-10-004
Proposed Gaston County High School May 27, 2010
Should these plans for on-site mitigation not ultimately be endorsed by the USACE and
DWQ, the proposed alternative approach for mitigation would be through payment into
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) In-lieu Fee Program. In
advance consideration of this prospect, a request for payment into the In-lieu Fee
Program for the 285 If of perennial channel impact has been sent to the NCEEP (see
Appendix VIII). USACE and DWQ will be notified in writing upon the anticipated
approval of this request.
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this application for project authorization under NWP #39 and WQC
3821. If you desire additional information, please feel free to contact us at 704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME

D. David Homans.
Natural Resources Staff Professional
lichael Wolfe
Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Reviewed by Neal McElveen, P.E.
Attachments
2010042 1
O?0? W A r?9?G
7
1?,?1 O T
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification C Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit 14?
0 J%
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ® Yes ? No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes N No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Proposed Gaston County High School
2b. County: Gaston
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Belmont :29 L= \ ZJ L!M U V U5
2d. Subdivision name: JU N 1 2010
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
OENR-WATER QUALITY
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Gaston County Board of Education
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 4456, pg. 2421
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Charles Jarnagin
3d. Street address: 943 Osceola St.
3e. City, state, zip: Gastonia, NC 28054
3f. Telephone no.: 704-714-7634
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. D. David Homans
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9711 Southern Pine Boulevard
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-523-4726
5f. Fax no.: 704-565-4929
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PID# 3584-49-8877
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.24318 Longitude: - -81.06054
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: -106 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to South Fork Catawba River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 11-129-(15.5)
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The subject property is comprised of cleared, secondary growth areas (a former golf course) with some forested slopes
and lowland riparian areas dominated by privet.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
12.4 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3,000 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a new high school to accommodate student overflow at other high
schools within Gaston County.
3e . Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project entails the construction of an approximately 162,000 square foot school building along with
associated athletic fields, parking, access roads and stormwater detention ponds. Equipment to be used on the job
includes industry standard construction and grading equipment such as trackhoes, dozers, trucks and cranes.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: In 2005, a jurisdictional delineation of the site
was performed and surveyed by Carolina Designs Group
LLC (CGD). This delineation was approved under Action ID
No. 200630288, dated 1/25/2005 though it should be noted
that this date may be a typographical error as the Action ID
dates to 2006 and the indicated expiration date of the ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
determination is 1/25/2011 instead of the expected
1/25/2010.
Due to the possibility of changes in the jurisdictional
boundaries on site, the potentially insufficient boundaries of
the original delineation, and confusion as to the expiration
date of the original delineation, it was decided to revisit the
project area to verify the boundaries depicted in the original
delineation and update any areas that were inconsistent with
current conditions.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
If yes Agency/Consultant Company: Carolinas Design Group,
, PLLC (CDG)
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
See comments above (question 4a).
A revised request for Jurisdictional Determination is included with this permit applciation based on revisions and updates
made by SWE to the original delineation performed by CDG.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ® P ? T Grading / fill Wetland C:
forested floodplain ® Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.02
? Yes ? Corps
W2 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.02
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
North Drive:

S1 ® P ? T Culverting /
Riprap apron and
Stream 2 ® PER

?INT ® Corps

®DWQ
12
102
plunge pool
installation
South Drive:

S2 ® P ? T Culverting /
Riprap apron and
Stream 2 ® PER

?INT ® Corps

®DWQ
15
183
plunge pool
installation
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 285
3i. Comments: Crossing of the ballfield access road is a bottomless culvert spanning greater than the jurisdictional width of
Stream 1 and is thus not considered an impact.
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ®P ? T Golf Course Pond Grading / Fill Pond 0.08
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
6b. 6c. 6d.
Buffer impact
number - Reason
Permanent (P) or for
Temporarv (T) impact
B1 ?P?T
B2 ?P?T
B3 ?P?T
6i. Comments:
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
? Catawba ? Randleman
6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer
Stream name mitigation
required?
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
(square feet) (square feet)
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Multiple revisions of the design have been made in order to minimize impact to jurisdictional features to all extents practicable.
Earlier designs involving stream relocation, utilization of the golf course pond as a stormwater management BMP, and
different access road alignments were all abandoned in favor of the current design due to excessive jurisdictional impacts.
Additionally, the placement of the baseball fields and the use of a bottomless culvert stream crossing for the access road were
entirely decided upon in an effort to minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas to all extents practicable.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Stringent sediment and erosion control practices will be in place during construction according to an approved sediment and
erosion control plan; work will be done in accordance with conditions of NWP 39 and regional conditions.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ® Yes ? No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

®Payment to in-lieu fee program

® Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 285 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ® warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): 0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4h. Comments: A copy of the EEP In-lieu Fee Program payment request form is included; It has been submitted to the EEP
on 5/27/2010. Approval letter for payment will be sent upon its receipt.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
The proposed mitigation plan will entail restoration and or enhancement of on-site degraded stream channels and riparian
buffers. The potential of this conceptual mitigation plan will be further assessed during a pending on-site meeting with
the USACE and DWQ.
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
Overall, the site impervous area is
24.7 acres yeilding 23%
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? overall for the site, though
imperviousness exceeds 24%
for numerous drainage areas
on site. %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
A stormwater permit in accordance with NPDES and local county regulations has been developed to minimize the
amount of stormwater coming from the construction site and coming from the site pos t construction. Three stormwater
ponds will be created on-site to removes sediment and act as a reservoir for stormwater. Additionally, during
construction, on-site streams will be monitored for sediment load to facilitate on-the-ground reaction to potential
stormwater issues.
® Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
Gaston County
Note- stormwater plan is currently
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? in the process of being completed
and submitted. Copies of the
proposed plan will be forwarded to
DWQ upon completion.
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
(check all that apply): ? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The construction of the high school is proposed in reaction to current and projected overflow of students and the
expected isufficiencies of the existing schools for providing for these students. As such, the proposed project should not
be viewed as a potential driver of growth in the region, rather a reaction to it. As a county school serving a large
geographic area it is not expected to result in additional adjacent development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Sewage will be connected into an existing municipal sewage treatment system.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS county list for North Carolina, NCNHP website. A scoping letter was sent to NCNHP and USFWS Asheville Field
Regulatory Office on March 3, 2010 and response letters were received dated March 9 and March 18, respectively. In
order to address the concerns expressed by USFWS regarding the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower, the
property was surveyed by S&ME biologists. In the areas where potential habitat was present, no federally protected
plants were identified.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The project is not locate near any of the costal areas where North Carolina's areas of Essential Fish Habitat have been
designated.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A scoping letter was provided to SHPO on March 3, 2010. As of this time, no response has been received.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA floodplain maps availible from
www.ncfloodmaps.com
D. David Homans 5/24/2010
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: 5-12-4110
Project Information
S&ME Project Name: Gaston County High School
Type of Project: Clean Water Act (Sections 404 & 401) Authorization Procedures
Location: Gaston County, North Carolina near Cramerton, NC
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
Gaston County Schools
P.O. Box 1397
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1397
704-714-7634
Mr. Charles Jarnagin
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
Mr. Michael Wolfe
Authorization:
I on behalf of
(Contact Signatur
_Gaston County Schools h uthorize
(Name of Landowner Representative)
S&ME, Inc. to act as agenk for the above-mentioned project.
Dallas
L =T i
Spencer Mountain'
L f A z-d
}
7I
? '??____Ranlo
Mount Holly
IMt.Adenville
?,--
,,? Lakewood Rd
z
Lr l ,?a ',_ Catawb 29
?'. Gastonia - « `rv fi
ramert
South.Fdrk CiJtay ba River
r
r, f? ,
Q Approximate Project Area
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ESRI STREETMAP USA DATASET (2000). PLEASE NOTE THIS
MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE
OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. _ Miles
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
DATE: 5-13-2010 SITE VICINITY MAP NO.
S &ME Proposed Gaston County High School
DRAWN BY: DDH Gaston County, North Carolina 1
CHECKED BY: MW PROJECTNO:
1357-10-004
Str StJ �i Y� y y" s, a
AA
ow
efs
1 `if / ry
7
110
Approximate Project Area
REFERENCE: USGS 1999 BELMONT [NC] QUAD SHEET
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USDA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY WEBSITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS -
MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE s
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FORANY DECISION MADE OR ANY 50� '000 1,500
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
Feet
SCALE: AS SHOWN
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FIGURE
DATE: 5-13-2010
S&MEProposed Gaston County High School
DRAWN BY: DDH - Gaston County, North Carolina
CHECKED BY: WWW.SMEI NC.CC
mwPRoJECT No: 1357-10-004

ORCHARD_lN
1F
P
oP??PNID
0
M
i ? cP? A
Z
Z S1? \
Y ?<
I
Q Approximate Project Area w
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE GIS LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE GASTON COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) Q
DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, O O Z5O 5OO 7rJO
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" _ 500' FIGURE
DATE: 5-13-2010 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
Proposed Gaston County High School
DRAWN BY: DDH ?. Gaston County, North Carolina
CHECKED BY: MW PROJECTNO:
1357-10-004
I LD
REFERENCE: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET FOR GASTON COUNTY N ,
THE ABOVE GIS LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE USDA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME,
INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
r
e
j/ CRCHgRp ?H
cGaD2
\\\ CfB PaE
3aD2
PAN ?
CfD
pa?
? E
/ - - CfB CF
?GPK
CfD?
r
/ i
CfD
i II Pa E
CfD
OQ I / WkF
r
?? 2C CfB
WkD
W i
p CH
CfD CfD
Op ? CfD
CeD2
92'Cr`?LPY`E`DR
CeD2 WnD
/
0 -- - GaB2 /
0
GJ,
CfB
w
g v
{ PaE GaD2 WnB m

P
W ?G<? _ ?oNG.
RO

CeD2 CeB2
f 0 250Jr 500 750 PaE
F
t
GaB2 ee
Q Approximate Project Area PaE: Pacolet sandy loam, 15-25% slopes
CeD2: Cecil sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded W: Water
CfB: Cecil-Urban land complex: 2-8% slopes WkD: Wilkes loam, 6-15% slopes
CfD: Cecil-Urban land complex: 8-15% slopes WkF: Wilkes loam, 15-30% slopes
CH: Chewacla loam, frequently flooded WnD: Winnsboro loam, 8-15% slopes
GaB2: Gaston sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, eroded
SCALE: 1., _ 500,
USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP FIGURE
NO.
DATE: 5-13-2010
??S&ME Proposed Gaston County High School
DRAWN BY: DDH Gaston County, North Carolina

-HECKED BY: MW PROJECT NO:
1357-10-004

MW A8 (13Ji03H0 VNIIMA dO H1210N `AiNnOO NOlSVJ
IOOHOS HJIH NOISVO 43SOdO2ld
Hdd :AS NMVa(1 X00-0 ?:oN i03road
3WWS*,, ddW SaNdI13M ONIanmiONI
O oz-c (-5 31V0 1002 :3WOS S'n 3 H1 :10 SH31VM 31VW IXOHddd 'ON 32jnold
'NOIIVAbOdNI SIHI NOdn O3Sv9 83Sn 3Hl A9 N3)4Vl SNO110V ANV 210 3aVA NOIS1030 ANV 80d
*uollee u llaa a E)O Ailll91SN08S324 ON S3Af1SSV'0NI '3W'8S 'Aovaino0V SlI lf109V S331NVbivno ON 3aV 92:OH1 's3isn 2:3H10 ANV
80 1V031'NOIS30 NOd 1NV3A ION SI 11 'WINO S3SOd8nd IVNOIlVWbOdNI HOd SI dVA SIHI 3UON 3SV3ld '311S
r? 93M SIO lOOON 3HI 0NV IN3AIHVd30 SID A1NnOO NOISVO 3Hl A08d CEMV190 32i3M S2i3AVl SIO 3A09V 3H1
puellem a , :30N3213d321
JeleM Uado El 199=1
uolla leu0p!psianf-u0N 009 00t, 00Z
(M&O sweGAS leiuuaaad
uaao=l ejea puellem c
uaao-? elea pueldn c
suolle00-1 0j0ud ?-
y pUellaM
_ T
0 0
(uoiod, waylnos)
d
? I1
(uoI}jod ujegpou)
j
A
93
F jjy+
M
4 puellaM ,?.
;
"WOO
b4l
??l S Jr
i
.NW YV'? S A S f ' ? ?`
'30VSf1 3HIAS 031d183n N339 A3 Hi 3AVH 80N 80ABA dnS ONVI (13831Sl038 V
AS 030210038 N339 lON 3AVH S318VONf109 03SIA38 'AoVBnooV 8313A-9f1S d0 31SVdV0
S1INn SdO ONisn 03080038 ONV (11314 3H1 NI (1399VId 383M NOUV33NII30IVNI0I80
3H1 A08d (130NVHO OVH S318VONf109 NOLOl0ISI8fV 383HM SV338V 'I3NNOS83d 3IMS
QN AS OIOZ kHvnNVf NI 031ISIA38 383M S318VONnoe IVNOIIOIOsiBnr 99Z0£900Z #OI NOI10V
83(1Nn 30VSf1 3H1 A9 (13n08ddV ONV (000) OIId dnoHo NOIS30 SVNII08VO AS 900Z
NI (13A3M8f1
S ONV O31V3NI130 AIIVINIOl80 383M S318VONf108IVN01101OSl8flf :310N. J
*NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE ORIGINIALLY DELINEATED AND SURVEYED IN 2005 BY CAROLINAS DESIGN GROUP
PLLC (CDG) AND APPROVED BY THE USACE UNDER ACTION ID# 200630288. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE REVISITED IN
JANUARY 2010 BY S&ME PERSONNEL; AREAS WHERE JURISIDICTION BOUNDARIES HAD CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL
DELINEATION WERE FLAGGED IN THE FIELD AND RECORDED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB-METER ACCURACY. REVISED
BOUNDARIES HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NOR HAVE THEY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
V
WETPOND #1
NEW HIGH
SCHOOL
BUILDING
0008,0
c?ooCso
O vaeaaa
OQ
ooI= oo
CocmgQo
H OR??ED
_`-??V?*?
1'd
II -Alp 4?
i
I e
4
A
Proposed Construction Design
0 200 400 600 Q Approximate Project Area
Feet Perennial Streams (RPW)
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN LAYOUT WAS PROVIDED BY CAMPCO ENGINEERING, INC. ON 5-13-2010. Non-jurisdictional Ditch
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR
ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO ?. j Open Water
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS
INFORMATION. Wetland
SCALE: 1" = 400' STREAM AND WETLAND EXHIBIT
DATE: 5-13-2010 S&ME IMPACT MAP- INDEX I
DRAWN BY: DDH PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL OF
CHECKED BY: GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 5
II, MW PROJECT NO:
1357-10-004 ,
NON
J` /
WETLAND C
Forested Wetland
0.02 acres of permanent fill RIPRAP APRON
due to grading for North Drive /
NO
?Ty PRECAST
OR?? BO CULVERT
? F
STREAM 2
Perennial RPW
102 LF of permanent impact
due to culvert placement and
riprap apron / plunge pool
RIPRAP LINED'
i -
PLUNGE POOL
I! Proposed Construction Design
\ !,
Proposed Grading Contours
Existing Utilities / Easements
® Riprap
0 25 50 75 ? ®impacted wetlands
Impacted Stream
Feet
Perennial Streams (RPW)
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN LAYOUT WAS PROVIDED BY CAMPCO ENGINEERING, INC. ON 5-13-2010. Non-Jurisdictional Ditch
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR
ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO Open Water
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS
INFORMATION.
Wetland
SCALE: 1•• = 50, STREAM AND WETLAND EXHIBIT
SATE: 5-13-2010 S&ME IMPACT MAP- NORTH DRIVE 2
DRAWN BY: DDH PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL of
;NECKED BY: GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 5
MW PROJECT NO:
1357-10-004
N
i ,
j _ GOLF COURSE POND
Open Water
0.08 acres of permanent fill
due to grading for South Drive
UTILITY
POLE ?i
t'
i
r
RIPRAP APRON
PRECAST
' 'gib 4 rs / i
T
BOX CULVERT
UTILITY
/- POLE
S
00000
RIPRAP LINED
PLUNGE POOL STREAM 2
Perennial RPW C
/ 183 LF of permanent impact
/ due to culvert placement and
riprap apron / plunge pool
FOOTPATH CROSSING Proposed Construction Design
TO BE LOCATED ATOP
EXISITING CULVERTED Proposed Grading Contours
CART PATH CROSSING Existing Utility Lines / Easements
-a- Perennial Streams (RPW)
Impacted Stream
0 25 50 75
®Riprap
Feet `
® Impacted Wetlands
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN LAYOUT WAS PROVIDED BYCAMPCO ENGINEERING, INC. ON 5-13- Non-Jurisdictional Ditch
2010. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN,
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES Open Water
NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANYACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS
INFORMATION. Wetland
KALE: 1" = 50, STREAM AND WETLAND EXHIBIT
)ATE: 5-13-2010 S&ME IMPACT MAP- NORTH DRIVE 3
IRAWN BY: = - PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL OF
NECKED BY: DDH GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 5
. MW PROJECT NO:
1357-10-004
N
BOTTOMLESS
CULVERT
STREAM 1
Perennial RPW
No impact due to bottomless
culvert spanned crossing
Culvert walls placed beyond
top-of-bank of stream
X)
/
IT,
C lam"
1 (/) I I
? ? III f
rrlr?
NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
Wetpond #3 creation results in
no impacts to jurisdictional waters
A
y
O
• Proposed Construction Design
Proposed Grading Contours
• Existing Utility Lines / Easements
0 75 150 -- Perennial Streams (RPW)
Feet Impacted Stream
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN LAYOUT WAS PROVIDED BY CAMPCO ENGINEERING, INC. ON 5-13- Non-jurisdictional Ditch
2010. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN,
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES Open Water
NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANYACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS
INFORMATION. [_ -- Wetland
SCALE: 1" = 75' STREAM AND WETLAND EXHIBIT
DATE: 5-13-2010 IMPACT MAP- BALLFIELDS 4
DRAWN BY: DDH ' S&ME PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL OF
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 5
CHECKED BY: MW PROJECT NO:
1357-10-004
OUTLET
RIP RAP
W INLE T
0 RIP RAP LENGTH 0f CULVERT
WIDTH OF DRIVE
O k
? l
PRECAST BOX CULVERT
PLUNGE POOL
HEADWALL
(TYP.)
BURY CULVERT
1'-0" AT OUTLET
SOURCE: CAMPCO ENGINEERING, INC.
Scale: NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BOX CULVET PROFILE EXHIBIT
Drawn by: M. Burgess S&ME PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL
Checked by: Mw - GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA OF
Date: 5-20-2010 Job No.: 1357-10-004 5
View of Stream 1, looking downstream.
View of non-jurisdictional ditch which flows into
Wetland A (inundation is due to recent rains).
Taken by: DDH/JoUMW
Checked by: MW ME
Date: 5.13.2010
northern portion of Wetland A which is densely
View looking downstream at Stream 2 in the vicinity of
the proposed south drive crossing.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Gaston High School
Gaston Count North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-10-004 Photo Page 1 of 2
9 View of Stream 2, in the vicinity of the proposed north
drive crossing.
View of typical former golf course area that makes
up the majority of the uplands on the property.
Taken by: DDH/JoUMW
Checked by: MW ME
Date: 5.13.2010
View looking upstream at Stream 4.
Additional view of typical uplands on the property.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Gaston High School
Gaston Countv. N
7 View of Wetland B and the open water portion of the
former pond.
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: ASHEVILLE FIELD REGULATORY OFFICE
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: PROPOSED GASTON HIGH SCHOOL
State:NORTH CAROLINA County/parish/borough: GASTON City: BELMONT
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.245858° N, Long. 81.062581 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): SOUTH FORK CATAWBA (03050102 )
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
® Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
M Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: STREAM 1: 500 LF, STREAM 2: 850 LF, STREAM 3: 550 LF, STREAM 4: 1,100 LF linear feet:
STREAM 1: 15 FT, STREAM 2:16 FT, STREAM 3: 6 FT, STREAM 4:12 FT width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: WETLAND A: 10.9 ACRES, WETLAND B: 0.3, WETLAND C: 0.3 ACRES, WETLAND D: 0.01 ACRES, POND:
0.9 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: WATER WAS CLEAR, THOUGH URBAN DEBRIS WAS PRESENT IN THE CHANNELS.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: NONE.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): >100 FEET OF PRIVET AND MIXED HARDWOODS.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: PROVIDES TYPICAL PERENNIAL STREAM HABITAT FOR
AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:WETLAND C: 0.3 ACRES, WETLAND D: 0.01 ACRES: acres
Wetland type. Explain:BOTH ARE FORESTED FLOODPLAIN WETLANDS DOMINATED BY PRIVET.
Wetland quality. Explain:RELATIVELY LOW QUALITY DUE TO THE DENSE INVASIVE SPECIES.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Discrete
Characteristics: SOME SURFACE FLOW WAS OBSERVED FLOWING IN DISCRETE UNCONFINED
CHANNELS BETWEEN THE WETLANDS AND THE ADJACENT TRIBUTARIES.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: SURFACE FLOW WAS OBSERVED FLOWING IN
DISCRETE UNCONFINED CHANNELS BETWEEN THE WETLANDS AND THE ADJACENT TRIBUTARIES.
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2 - 5-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: WATER IS CLEAR.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: TYPICAL URBAN POLUTANTS FROM UPSTREAM IN STREAM 2.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):FORESTED BUFFER AND PRIVET.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100% PRIVET UNDERSTORY.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( 0.31 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
WETLAND C N 0.3
WETLAND D N 0.01
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: WETLAND C AND D SERVE TO
STORE OVERLAND FLOW ARIVING FROM UPSLOPE AREAS DURING RAIN EVENTS AND SEASONALLY WET
TIMES AND THUS ATTENUATE FLOW PEAKS IN THE ADJACENT TRIBUTARIES, THUS PREVENTING BANK
EROSION AND CHANNEL INCISION. THEY ALSO SERVE TO PROVIDE TYPICAL HABITAT FOR FLOODPLAIN
WETLAND SPECIES ESSENTIAL TO THE LOWLAND COMMUNITIES TYPICAL OF PEIDMONT TRIBUTARIES
SIMILAR TO STREAMS 2 AND 3 (THOUGH CURRENT INVASIVE SPECIES ARE LIMITING THIS HABITAT).
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: WETLAND C AND D HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DUE TO THE DISCRETE (THOUGH NON-
JURISDICTIONAL) AQUATIC CONNECTIONS OBSERVED TO STREAMS 2 AND 3 AND DUE TO THE ESSENTIAL
ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF STREAMS 2 AND 3 WHICH FLOW DIRECTLY INTO
WETLAND A, WHICH IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER, A TNW.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
ED Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: WETLAND A: 10.9 acres.
2. R.PWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
ED Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: STREAM 1,2 AND 3 EXHIBITED GEOMORPHIC, BIOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC
CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH A PERENNIALLY FLOWING STREAM (SEE ATTACHED STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS; NC DWQ ASSESSMENT SCORES: STREAM 1- 53.5, STREAM 2- 47.25 STREAM 3- 37.5
STREAM 4- 43).
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Z Tributary waters: STREAM 1: 500 LF, STREAM 2: 850 LF, STREAM 3: 550 LF, STREAM 4: 1,100 LF linear
feet STREAM 1: 15 FT, STREAM 2:16 FT, STREAM 3:6 FT, STREAM 4:12 FT width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: WETLAND B WAS DELINEATED IN THE FIELD AS DIRECTLY ABUTTING
STREAM 2 AND THE POND IMPOUNDMENT OF STREAM 2.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.053acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.31 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
0 Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
'See Footnote # 3.
s To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'s
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:S&ME, INC.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1999 BELMONT [NC] 1:24,000 QUAD SHEET (FIGURE 2).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATA
FOR GASTON COUNTY (FIGURE 4).
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jlurisdicdon Following Rapanos.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FIGURE 3).
or ® Other (Name & Date): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:ACTION ID#200630288, DATED 1/25/2005 (LIKELY 2006?).
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

U .S, ARMY CORPS OF E NGI NE.FRS
DISTP ICT
id. 200630288 Gaston L:.S.G.S. Quau. Belmont
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
?roperry OwneriAgent: Fakewood LLC
Address: 503 Pawlev Dr.
Charlotte. NC 28224
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.) Lakewood Links development located iust south
of Cramerton off of SR 2014.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination tray be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which; provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to rite
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Remarks:
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 01/25/2005 Expiration Date 01/25/2011
Page 1 of 2
Ac .ion it 200630288
r;aC' :I?te Ili Of d1"eugzG 0 :i?l ,:,ateriist c'iU s -Gtcr of L na ?r F.` iEn •?'_Ct ?'ui .. Depa-iili ni ; d fit? 7 1' ?pifr tlE
Constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Ail 133 . L-SC i 31 1 L You have any guesiions regarding this
seterrninaiion an1'or the Corps regulatory program. please contact Steve Chavin at [phone],
Basis For Determination: Stream channels exhibit ordinary hieh water marks, wetlands have the 3 required parameters
as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. and ponds are connected to adiacent or
downstream waters.
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial): SC
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form-
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the "Isolated
Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this for-tn.
Page 2 of 2
fI
Y•
Applicant: Lakewood LLC ; File Number: 200630288 11 Date: 1125/06
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
j PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTIOII I J1ie fallowu? nttf es =Dirt n is an
d o ttons` dm .at:ad>tnistratxve° eal of tle above.
8 y S _ aPP
decision. Addrti©nal ihNi
actor may be found at http://usace:arrny iit& het?fU ' ibils/CW/CeCWOIie UI
Co s re' lations at 33 CFXPart 331.
A: IMTIAAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard Or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that
the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer.
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right
to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify
the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process
by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This fornn must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you Nvish, you may request an
approved ID ('ivhich n??v be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Aiso ??au may
prc+v-Ci' nv tI'•1Or!lld;ll!_i fo, .ar..,1 C:} CF;,ll.c?ti
t-
SECTION Q`IIESTFOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TGAEI INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT z
REASONS FOR APPEAL. OR OBTECTIOM: (DM ibe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objecrion., to an
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements, You may attach additional information to this forn-) to cisnfy where your reasc?ns
or objection; are. addresscd in the adri-iinistrativc- record.;
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal
process you may contact:
Mr. Steve Chapin, Regulatory Specialist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
vJ
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opDommity to Darticinate in all site investigations.
Date:
Signature of appellant or agent.
Telephone number:
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division. South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9AJ15
Wanta, Georgia 10303-3490
rt
• NtTa
flJ
z r
r
r _
() I. t r 1 ? t
rzr 4r "
.. • t1.ib.E. l-a
r. e, 'y
pS I
i
c??h
?i
-?F
?'eF
,:az =
-v:
.. ,\ .r ft
•C
% s•{t C\V `t5
- :S •E
1- V-?sT E \ E
i
e i

EsuEk
e?7F

?It`E
?•4s
•? x
yt
t
•? C c
•s
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/14/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No[] Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No M Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes? No® Plot ID: A (southern portion)
Lat:35.24125-N Lon: 81.06204°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Sambucus canadensis S/S FACW- 9.
2 Carex sn. H 10.
3. SciMus vaUdus H OBL 11.
4. Salix nipra S/S OBL 12.
5. Platanus occidentaUs T FACW- 13.
6. Acer rubrum T FA 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 5 / 5 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant predominantly emergent.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations 1-1 ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystru depts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Death Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moistl Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl and Abundance / Contrast Rhizosnheres, etc.
0-3 10YR 3/2 none silty loam
3-12+ 10YR 3/2 7.5YR 4/6 many clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?S No[-]
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No[-]
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/14/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? YesM No[] Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No N1 Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot 1D: A (northern portion)
Lat:35.24236°N Lon: 81.05896°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Ligustrum sinense S/S FAC 9.
2• Lonicera loonica H FA C- 10.
3. Vitas rotundifolia H FAC IL
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 2 / 3 = 67
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystru depts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-5 10YR 311 10YR 4/3 faint silty loam
5-12+ 10YR 411 7.5YR 4/6 many fine sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERNIINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? YesW No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/14/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No El Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: A
Lat:35.24132°N Lon: 81.06192°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I • Acer rubrum T FAC 9.
2. Prunus serodna T FA 10.
3. Rubus sp. H 11.
4. Lonicera japonica H FAC- 12.
5. Pinus taeda T FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 2 / 4 = 50
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is not dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
?- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-2 7.5YR 4/3 none clay loam
2-12+ 7.5YR 4/6 none clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERNUNATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes? No®
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes? No?X
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes? No®
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/15/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes? No® Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? NoX? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes[-] No® Plot 1D: B
Lat:35.24371°N Lon: 81.06132°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I • Salix nirra S/S OBL 9.
2. Ty ha la ' olia H L 10.
3. Sg:Mus vaUdus H OBL 11
4• Juncus ejTusus H FA W+ 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 4 / 4 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
ET_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 5 (in.) SECONDARY
IX- Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) [j] Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is present.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Water Drainage Class:
Series and Phase):
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizosnheres, etc-
0-10 10YR 6/2 none sand
10-12+ 10YR 3/1 none mucky sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ® High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are made up of sand and other sediment that has recently deposited in the pond.
WETLAND DETERNIINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No[-]
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/15/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes© No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? NoX? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[-] No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: C
Lat:35.24454-N Lon: 81.06178°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Lipustrum sinense S/S FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrum T A 10.
3. Lonicera lanonica H FAC- IL
4. Ponulus deltoides T FAC+ 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 3 / 4 = 75
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
-? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
® Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) W Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist] Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-1 10YR 4/4 none loam
1-6 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 many loam
6-12+ 10yr 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 many clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERIVIINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No[-]
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No[-]
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/15/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No R] Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: D
Lat:35.24556°N Lon: 81.0613°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Lieustrum sinense S/S FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrum T FAC 10.
3- Lonicera japonica H FAC- I l
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 2 / 3 = 67
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
?- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
f Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystru depts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (MUnsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-1 7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/6 many; 7.5YR 3/1 few fine sand loam
1-12+ 7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 many sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[} No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: Gaston County High School Date: 1/15/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County Schools County: Gaston
Investigator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? YesM No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? Nom Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[:] No[k]
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: B, C and D
Lat:35.24445°N Lon: 81.0614°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Ligustrum sinense S/S FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrum T FAC 10.
3. Lonicera ianonica H FAC-
.
H.
4. Platanus occidentaUs T FACW- 12.
5. Ponulus deltoides T FAC+ 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 4 / 5 = 80
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
CT- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
® Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystru depts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-2 7.5YR 4/4 none clay loam
2-12+ 7.5YR 4/6 none clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes[-] No®
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[-] No?X
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes[-] No®
Remarks: This upland data form is representative of the areas around Wetlands B, C, and D.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/14/2010 Project Gaston County High School Latitude: 35.24389°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 1 Longitude: 81.05789°W
Total Points 53 5
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if a 30 ' County: Gaston Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 29.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
c ive re Ic oo p aln 3
Depositional bars or benches 3
Braided channel 2
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural levees 2
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov (Subtotal= 11.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1
19. y nc soils re oxlmorp Ic ea ures presen . Yes =1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 12.5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish
1
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 1
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/15/2010 Project Gaston County High School
Latitude: 35.24249°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 2 Longitude: 81.06178-W
Total Points 47.25
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if z 30 County: Gaston Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 26.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo pain 3
Depositional bars or benches 2
Braided channel 2
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or pies (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y ric soils re oximorp IC features) present? Yes = 1.5
C. Blolociv (Subtotal = 9.25
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 1
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0.5
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 3
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75
b. Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/15/2010 Project Gaston County High School Latitude: 35.24615°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 3 Longitude: 81.06087°W
Total Points 37 5
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if z 30 ' County: Gaston Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2
Active/relic oo p aln 3
Depositional bars or benches 3
Braided channel b
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. aura evees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R Hvdrolnov (Subtotal = 11 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y rlc soils re oxlmorp is ea Ures presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloov (Subtotal = 6.5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0.5
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
b. Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/15/2010 Project Gaston County High School Latitude: 35.24637°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D. David Homans) Site: Stream 4 Longitude: 81.06045°W
Total Points 43
Stream is at least intermittent
if Z 19 or perennial if a 30 County: Gaston Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 23.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3
Active/relic oo p aln 3
Depositional bars or benches 3
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 11.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris
18. Organic debris Ines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y ric soils re oximorp is ea ures presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 8 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish 0.5
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
o. Items zu ana zi tocus on the presence of uplana plants. item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQV
Provide the followin¢ information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Gaston County Schools 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/14/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 01:31:28pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 430 acres 8. Stream order: 2+
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Gaston
l l.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.24389°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 81.05789°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
See Map.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bottomless culvert crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: cold, deep freeze
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
20 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Forested 30 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 12' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 3
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 62 Comments:
Evaluators Signature:' Date: 1/14/2010
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
# R
TICS SCORE
CHA
ACTERIS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
l Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong now = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 ' Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
04
04
3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
3
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4 1
_ extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 3
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F*
00
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F-0 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
H
r?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common,, numerous t)Tes = max points)
>> 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 04 0-4 3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t)Tes = max points)
O Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t)Tes = max points)
0 H
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 62
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
f? i• 1 _AW
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Gaston County Schools 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/15/2010 4. Time of Evaluation:10:05:08am
5. Name of stream: Stream 2 6. River basin: South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 380 acres 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Gaston
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.24249°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 81.06178°W
Method location determined ? GIPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
See Map.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Culverted crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: cold
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warming up
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: No
10 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40 % Forested 50 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 15 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) Gentle (2-4%) X Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments: 1__`1:,?//7/ Y"
Evaluators Signature: Date: 1/15/2010
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS ORE
S
C
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 0-4 3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
>. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
2
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
? little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
FH,{
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
pq (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 04 04 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
r2O Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
>0 21 ` Presence of amphibians 04 04 0-4 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t)Tes = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04 2
C (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AJQF
i
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Gaston County Schools 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 1115/2010 4. Time of Evaluation:11 1:22:21 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 3 6. River basin: South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 71 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Gaston
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.24615°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 81.06087°W
Method location determined ? GPS ?Topo Sheet ?Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
See Map.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: cold
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warming up
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: No
0 % Residential 20 % Commercial 20 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 30 % Forested 30 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 7 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 3
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 53 Comments:
Evaluators Signature: Date: 1/15/2010
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
S SCORE
# CHARACTERISTIC
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 3
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04 3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 04 0-2 3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 - Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
>, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F
*0
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rA 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F-o 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 04 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 53
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
([7 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Gaston County Schools 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/15/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 1 1:36:50am
5. Name of stream: Stream 4 6. River basin: South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 260 acres 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Gaston
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.24637°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 81.06045°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
See Map.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: cold
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warming up
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: No
0 % Residential 20 % Commercial 20 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 30 % Forested 30 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 13 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52 Comments:
Evaluators Signature: ?- Date: 1/15/2010
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
04
04
3
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
1:6 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
1
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04 3
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
*4
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
04
0-0 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
M 14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
I S substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints)
E-0 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
H
?-?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 04 04 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5 2
2 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 04 011 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 52
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
AI"W?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall Dee Freeman
Govemor Director Secretary
March 9, 2010
Crystal Fox and Joey Lawler
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
RE: Information Request
Proposed Gaston County High School
Gaston County, NC
S&ME Project No. 1357-10-004
Dear Ms. Fox and Mr. Lawler:
The NC Natural Heritage Program has two current records of rare species and one Significant Natural Heritage
Area (SNHA) within two miles of the project area described in the request for concurrence.
Rare species reported from within two miles of the proposed Gaston County High School site:
Bigleaf Magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla) - NC: Significantly Rare
Magnolia Vine (Schisandra glabra) - NC: Threatened, Special Concern
The rare species are located approximately 1 mile south of the proposed Gaston County High School site at the
Armstrong Ford Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA). This privately-owned SNHA lies along a series of
north-facing slopes and ravines. The population of Magnolia Vine, only the second in the state, is present in the
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest along the slopes. Bigleaf Magnolia is also present within the site.
The presence of the species listed above indicates an increased potential for occurring within the project area if
suitable habitat exists there. Please contact the NC Plant Conservation Program and the NC Natural Heritage
Program if this or other rare species are found within the project area. If rare species are found, we request that
you design the project to minimize impacts to the populations and their habitat.
The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncnhp.org
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NhCarolina
one
aturallt?
Natural Resources Plonning and Conservation
You may check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of rare plants
and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our Program also has a
new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and significant natural heritage
areas within two miles of a given location: http://nhpwcb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/gmap75_main.phtrn]. The
user name is "public" and the password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Misty Buchanan, Botanist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncnhp.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmabye Adon Employer
NhCarofina
one
Nartwrally
Naiurd Resources Planning and (onservolion
eNT OF T
0 A
O
7
?gRCH
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 18, 2010
Ms. Crystal Fox
Mr. Joey Lawler
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273-5560
Dear Ms. Fox and Mr. Lawler:
Subject: Proposed Gaston County High School, Hubard Road, Gaston County, North Carolina
(S&ME Project 1357-10-004)
In your letter of March 3, 2010, you requested our comments about the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to your letter, "The project area is an approximately 99 acre tract of land (Gaston
County Parcel Identification Number 3584-49-9920) near Cramerton, N.C. Review of aerial
photography indicates that the proposed project area consists of secondary growth areas as well
as forested areas. Based on review of USGS topographic mapping, the project area was formerly
a golf course and two unnamed tributaries of the South Fork Catawba River are present on-site.
An existing transmission line easement traverses a portion of the subject property to the
southeast and an existing railroad is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project
area." Your letter does not detail any construction design or techniques that will be used.
General Comments
Without more information about the proposed construction, we are not able to provide specific
comments. Our principal concerns are with potential impacts to area streams and wetlands and
species on the federal list of threatened and endangered species.
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species
You do not present evidence of any surveys of the project area for federally listed species. We
are particularly concerned that the proposed sewer lines could potentially affect the endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Unless an area has been specifically surveyed
for listed species or no appropriate habitat exists, a survey should be conducted to ensure that
these resources are not inadvertently lost. Enclosed is a list of the federally listed endangered
and threatened species, candidate species, and federal species of concern known from Gaston
County. This list is also available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html.
In accordance with the Act, before any federal authorization/permits or funding can be issued for
this project, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory/permitting agency(ies) to
determine whether the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed
species) or designated critical habitat. If it is determined that this project may affect any listed
species or designated critical habitat, section 7 consultation with this office must be initiated.
Please note that federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed
as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them.
Impervious Surfaces/Low-Impact-Development (LID) Techniques. The proposed
development will contribute to the quantity and quality of storm water entering project area
waterways. Recent studies' have shown that areas of 10- to 20-percent impervious surface (such
as roofs, roads, and parking lots) double the amount of storm-water runoff compared to natural
cover and decrease deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50-percent
impervious surface, runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above
75-percent impervious surface, runoff is 5.5 times higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration
is decreased by 80 percent. The adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is
essential for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes.
Impervious surfaces collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly
transmit them (via storm-water runoff) to receiving waters. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in
the United States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is linked to chronic and
acute illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking water and contact
recreation. Increased storm-water runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat,
causing stream-bank and stream-channel scouring. In addition, because impervious surfaces
reduce groundwater recharge, they result in even lower than expected stream flows during
drought periods, which can induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other
aquatic life. Accordingly, we recommend that all new developments, regardless of the
percentage of impervious surface area they will create, implement storm-water-retention and
-treatment measures designed to replicate and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction
condition in order to avoid any additional impacts to habitat quality within the watershed.
'Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
October 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs
No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
2
Further, we recommend the use of low-impact-development techniques,2 such as reduced road
widths, grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm-water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm-water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm-water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm-water-control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm-water-control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
Stream Impacts. One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect
stream health is the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have
greater and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity3 and can
ameliorate many ecological issues related to land use and environmental qua] ity.4 Riparian
buffers accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
2We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site (http://www.epa.govlowowlnpsllidl)for
additional information and fact sheets regarding the implementation of low-impact-development techniques.
3R. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
4R.J. Naiman, H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212.
3
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum 100-foot native
forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native forested buffers along
each side of intermittent streams and wetlands .5,6 We additionally encourage the
implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as
headwater streams.' 8 Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream
bank,9 which may result in wider buffers at higher gradients.
Stream Crossings. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated
wetlands. All stream crossings should be made perpendicular to the stream. We recommend
bridges that span the entire floodplain because it is important for streams to have
access/connectivity to the floodplain. Bridges that span the stream and floodplain are the best
option because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic
organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains. Bridges should be
designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream, and approaches and
abutments should not constrict the stream channel. Bridges should also be designed to allow for
safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To provide for terrestrial wildlife passage, the new bridge
design should span beyond the waterway so that unsubmerged land is also bridged. If bank
stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Longer
bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife crossing under an existing roadway. Also,
floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in the floodplain for bridge construction.
If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and
not disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream
functions and habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and
velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of
5For projects potentially affecting waterways that contain federally listed species, the above-recommended buffer
widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent streams and 200 feet for perennial streams).
6J.S. Stewart, D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P.J. Wigington, Jr., and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi-land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
7R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen
to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
sB.J. Peterson, W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden,
H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86-90.
9K.L. Knutson and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
4
debris and bed material during bank-full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Consideration should be given to minimum water depth during low-flow/dry periods when
designing culvert placement. Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to
accommodate both the upstream and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth
inside the culvert must be adequate for fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the
bottom of the stream. The culvert should be designed and installed at the same slope as the
stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity for fish passage, and the stream substrate
characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where feasible, we recommend the use of
multiple barrels (other than the base-flow barrel), placed on or near stream bank-full or
floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the stream corridor.
These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished
by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel(s). If the
culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life
by: (l) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground-disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be
retained (if possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be
revegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.
The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year-round aquatic
organism passage and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following Web site for
additional information regarding stream crossing activities:
http: //www. stream.fs fed. uslfishxing/pointers. html
Erosion and Sedimentation Control. To effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts,
Best Management Practices should be designed, installed, and maintained during land-disturbing
activities. A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for
developing site-specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the
requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative
Rules, is available at http://www.dir.enr.state.nc.us/pages/publications.htm].
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our
staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-10-105.
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
5
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species, Gaston County, North
Carolina
Updated: 01-31-2008
Common Name
Vertebrate:
Bald eagle
Bog turtle
Vascular Plant:
Georgia aster
Schweinitz's sunflower
Shoals spiderlily
Scientific name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Symphyotrichum georgianum
Helianthus schweinitzii
Hymenocallis coronaria
Federal Status Record Status
BGPA Current
T (S/A) Current
C Current
E Current
FSC Probable/potentia
1
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
information to support listing. (Formerly "CI" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in
the future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity
of appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are
not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See
below.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA):
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered,
and removed (de-listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This
6
delisting took effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle
Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that
includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to
provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald
eagles. For more information, visit http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirdsibaldea lg e htm
Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S/AD:
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog
turtle (from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern
population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of
appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate and international
commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no
effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of
concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the
proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or
both.
7
Statement of Compliance with Session Law 2009-337 An Act to Promote
the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks
(link to SL 2009-337)
Prior to accessing the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) In-Lieu Fee Mitigation
Program, all applicants requesting wetlands, stream and/or riparian buffer mitigation are now
required by law to comply with Session Law 2009-337 An Act to Promote the Use of
Compensatory Mitigation Banks. All new requests submitted on or after July 24, 2009 MUST
include this form signed and dated by the permit applicant or an authorized agent. Applicants
with unexpired acceptance letters may continue with their plans to use the In-Lieu Fee
Program or withdraw their request and seek other available mitigation options.
Compliance Statement:
I have read and understand SL-2009-337 and have, to the best of my knowledge,
complied with its requirements.
Please check all that apply:
X Applicant is a Government Entity as defined in G.S. 143-214.11 and is not
required to purchase credits from a mitigation bank.
There are no known private mitigation banks with the requested credit type
located in the hydrologic unit where this impact will take place (link to QWQ list).
I have contacted the mitigation bank(s) in the hydrologic unit where the impacts
will occur and credits are not available.
The application was submitted to the regulatory agencies prior to October 1,
2008 for streams and wetland impacts or July 24, 2009 for riparian buffer
impacts.
The DWQ or the Corps of Engineers did not approve of the use of a mitigation
bank for the required compensatory mitigation for this project.
Note: It is the applicant's responsibility to document any inquiries made to private
mitigation banks regarding credit availability.
I have read and understand EEP's refund policies (attached)
initial here
Signature of Applicant or Agent
D. David Homans, S&ME
Printed Name
Date
Gaston High School
Belmont, NC, Gaston County
Project Name Location
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, NCEEP
IN-LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM for Non-DOT Customers
Revised 09/24/2009
Print this form, fill in requested information, sign and date, and either mail to NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1652, fax to 919-715-2219, or email to kelly.williams(cDncdenr.gov. Attachments are acceptable for clarification purposes
(location map is required). Review meetings are held on Monday afternoons and decisions are provided within 2 weeks.
CONTACT INFORMATION
1. Business or Individual Name
APPLICANT'S AGENT (optional) APPLICANT
S&ME, Inc. Gaston County Board of Ed.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
D. David Homans
7. E-Mail Address (optional)
.........
704-525-3953
[e-mail] [e-mail]
PROJECT INFORMATION
8. Project Name
9. Project Location (nearest town, city)
"ATTACH MAP SHOWING IMPACT LOCATION"
Proposed Gaston High School
Belmont, NC
10. Lat-Long Coordinates (optional)
11. Project County
12. River Basin & Cataloging Unit (8-digit)
(See Note 1)
13. Project Type
Gaston
South Fork Catawba River (03050102)
X
14. Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) (e.g., 0.13)
Government Private Commercial
15. Non-Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.)
16. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.)
17. Stream Impact (ft.) (e.g. 1,234)
(See Note 2) 11 18. Buffer impact (sq. ft.) (e.g. 12,345)
(where applicable, See Note 3)
_ . _...... _. _ . __.....-
19. Regulatory Agency Staff Contacts
(Indicate names, if known)
................. ....- _.
Zone 1: Zone 2:
USACE:Steve Chapin DWQ:Alan Johnson
..... _............
., . __... _. _.,....
20. Other Regulatory ID Information
(e.g., USACE Action ID, if known)
IMPORTANT By signing below, the applicant is confirming they have
Check (?l) below if this request is a: read and understand EEP's refund policy posted at
_ revision to a current acceptance, or nceep.net.
_ re-submission of an expired acceptance Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent:
extension of unexpired acceptance
Date:
_
__. -_ ..__._ _____.__ -____-_-_..-_-_.._-_.. __...--__ -------- ---- .._. ._-__--__.--_..._._...
Note 1: For help in determining the Cataloging Unit, visit:hftp.//denrmar)s.ncdenr.org/EEPmai)s or call EEP contact below
Note 2: For guidance on stream temperatures, go to:
hftp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigat ion/Documents/Stream/Appendices/Append ixl. Ddf
Warm Cool Cold
............. ......................
285 LF
Note 3: Buffer mitigation applicable only in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Lake Water
Supply Watershed.
Direct questions to Kelly Williams at 919-716-1921 or kelly.williamsta)ncdenr.gov or to EEP's front desk at 919-715-0476.
Refund Policy for Fees Paid to EEP's In-Lieu Fee Programs (9/21/2009)
Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to make clear the circumstances and process under which a
permittee can obtain a refund while simultaneously balancing customer service and responsible
business practices. This policy applies to all refund requests made on or after the publication date of
this policy.
1. All refund requests must be made in writing to EEP's In-Lieu Fee Program Coordinator at
kelly.williams(a-),ncdenr.gov.
2. All refund requests are subject to fund availability. EEP does not guarantee fund availability for
any request.
3. The request must either come from the entity that made the payment or from an authorized agent.
Third parties requesting refunds must provide written authorization from the entity that made the
payment specifying the name and address of the authorized refund recipient.
4. Refund requests related to unintended overpayments, typographical errors or incorrect invoices
should be brought the attention of the In-Lieu Fee Program Coordinator as soon as possible. Such
requests are typically approved without delay.
5. Payments made under EEP's incremental payment procedure are not eligible for refunds.
6. Refund requests made within nine months of payment to EEP will only be considered for requests
associated with projects that have been terminated or modified where the permittee's mitigation
requirements have been reduced. Such requests must be accompanied by written verification from the
permitting agency that the project has been cancelled, the permits have been rescinded or have been
modified, or the mitigation requirements have been reduced.
7. Refund requests made more than nine months from the payment date will only be considered for
permits that were terminated or modified to not require any mitigation. Such requests must be
accompanied by written verification from the permitting agency that the project has been cancelled, the
permits have been rescinded and/or mitigation is no longer required.
8. Refund requests not meeting the criteria specified above are not eligible for a refund.
9. Refund requests that meet the criteria above will be elevated to EEP Senior Management for
review. The following considerations apply to all refund requests:
a. availability of funds after consideration of all existing project and regulatory obligations
b. the date the payment was made
c. the likelihood EEP can use the mitigation procured using the payment to meet other
mitigation requirements
10. Once a refund has been approved, the refund recipient must provide a completed W-9 form to
EEP's In-Lieu fee Program Coordinator within two weeks in order to process the refund though the
State Controller's Office.
11. All decisions shall be final.