20110119 Ver 1_401 Application_20110211

January 31, 2011
Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
AI
20110119
OR
401/Wetlands Unit F'EB 2 2011
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 DEMR-wATERQUNM
AW37M WA7ERXVM
RE: High Shoals Sewer Interconnect Project
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Nationwide Permit No. 12 Request
Gaston County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of Gaston County (County), hereby submits a
preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD) request and Nationwide Permit application for the High
Shoals Interconnect project. The project includes renovations to the existing High Shoals collection
system, extending the wastewater collection system to unsewered areas of High Shoals,
decommissioning two existing package wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), and extending the
system's outfall downstream to the Long Creek WWTP. Sewer service will also be provided to the
Gaston County Energy Park and Gaston County Landfill. The project includes the construction of
five waste water pump stations and installation of approximately 35,509 LF of gravity sewer
and 19,538 LF of force main piping. This letter and supporting documents outline the proposed
construction activities and associated impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the proposed
project alignment.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND ACTIVITY
The City of High Shoals currently owns and operates two poorly performing WWTPs. The primary
purpose of the interconnect project is to decommission the High Shoals WWTPs and convey wastewater
to the City of Gastonia's Long Creek WWTP. The High Shoals Sewer Interconnect Project would
extend service to High Shoals,. the Gaston County Landfill, the Gaston County Power Generation
Facility, the Gaston County Energy Park, and potentially other property owners along the sewer
alignment with aging septic systems.
ASSESSMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND IMPACTS
Field Review
HDR performed a field assessment to document jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. within the Study Area
(a 200-foot wide corridor centered on the proposed force main alignment). The area was examined
440 S Church Strut Phani (MO 3386100
Non Eayisoalall.Inc. of 09 Carolinas suits 1000 Fax [phone]
Chart ms, NC 2202-1818 www.hdrine.com
according to the methodology described in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the
recent USACE Rapanos guidance. HDR identified 20 jurisdictional waters as seven (7) Relatively
Permanent Waters (RPWs) with perennial flow, nine (9) RPWs with seasonal flow, two (2) forested
wetlands, one (1) scrub-shrub wetlands, and one (1) emergent wetland (Table 1).
Imoacts to Delineated Jurisdictional Waters
The alignment was designed to avoid and minimize significant impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. Nine of the 16 streams identified within the Study Area and three of the four wetlands were
avoided completely, including the three South Fork Catawba River crossings which will be directionally
bored. The proposed project will have 9 permanent stream crossings and 1 permanent wetland crossing.
To minimize impacts to these features, the proposed utility line will be installed at a near perpendicular
angle to the streams that cannot be avoided. Construction will consist of open cut trench excavation,
followed by the placement of pipe and rip rap protection in the trench below the normal high water
level. Sediment and erosion control measures will be employed during construction to protect on-site
and downstream waters.
Temporary stream impacts will occur within the Temporary Construction Easement and consist of
diverting water and excavation within the stream channel during the installation of the new pipe.
Following completion of the construction, the stream beds will be returned to pre-construction contours
and stream banks within the temporary impact zone will be graded, seeded and matted with erosion
control material. Temporary impacts will be no more than 30 LF at each crossing for a project total of
270 LF. Permanent impacts to stream channels will be associated with the placement of rip rap in the
channels for the establishment of a 10-foot wide permanent maintenance corridor. Permanent impacts
consist of 10 LF at each crossing for a project total of 90 LF.
Temporary wetland impacts will occur within the Temporary Construction Easement in Wetland B and
consist of land clearing and excavation and burial of new pipe (a minimum 4 feet below current wetland
surface elevation). No grading activities will take place in the wetland. Temporary impacts will be 0.04
acre of forested wetland. Following construction, temporarily impacted wetlands will be reseeded with
native species. Permanent impacts to Wetland B will consist of woody vegetation removal for a 10-foot
wide permanent maintenance corridor for a total of 0.01 acre of impacts.
A summary of impacts to jurisdictional areas is presented in Table 1.
NOR Egiaaarias.Inc. of the Carolinas
Table 1. Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Feature N u inber Sheet Classification Size I nipacts ' I nipacts I rupacts
rUftar
SA - OOC-04WM RPW with Perennial Flow 390 *No Impacts
SB - OOC-02WM RPW with Perennial Flow 202 *No Impacts
Sc S4 OOC-02WM RPW with Seasonal Flow 245 30 10 40
SD S3 OOC-02WM RPW with Seasonal Flow 255 *No Impacts

SE S7
S8
S9
OOC-04WM
RPW with Perennial Flow
2,600
90
30
120
SF - - RPW with Seasonal Flow 120 *No Impacts
SG - - RPW with Seasonal Flow 96 *No Impacts
SH - - RPW with Seasonal Flow 140 *No Impacts
SI S2 00C-01 WM RPW with Seasonal Flow 295 30 10 40
Si - 00C-O1 WM RPW with Seasonal Flow 225 *No Impacts
SL S6 OOC-03WM RPW with Perennial Flow 715 30 10 40
SM S5 OOC-02WM RPW with Perennial Flow 305 30 10 40
SN S1 00C-0lWM RPW with Perennial Flow 205 30 10 40
SX - OOC-03WM RPW with Perennial Flow 75 *No Impacts
SY - OOC-04WM RPW with Perennial Flow 55 *No Impacts
Stream Totals: 5,923 270 90 320
Ws"ds square feet (aere3)
WA - - Emergent Wetland 6,155 (0.14) *No Impacts
WB W1 OOC-03WM Forested Wetland 66,055 (1.51) 1,893
4) 1 451
0.01 2,344
0.05
WC - OOC-03WM Scrub Shrub Wetland 4,180 (0.09) *No Impacts
WZ - 00C-03WM Forested Wetland 5,627 (0.13) *No Impacts
Wetland Totals: 82,017 (1.88) 1.893 (0.04) 451 (0.01) 2.344 (0.05)
REGULATORY CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 28, 2010,
indicating that the proposed activities will not affect any federally-listed threatened or endangered
species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. A copy of the concurrence letter is enclosed. A December
9, 2009 letter from the NC State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) determined the proposed project
will not affect any historical resources. Copies of the aforementioned project concurrence letters are
enclosed.
MDR Engineering, Inc. tithe Carolinas
We hereby request a preliminary jurisdictional determination and authorization to construct this project
under Nationwide Permit No. 12. Enclosures are as follows:
• Agent Authorization Form
• Pre-Construction Notification (with additional Stream Impacts Table)
• Property Owner Table
• Project Vicinity (Figure 1)
• USGS Quadrangles (Figure 2a and Figure 2b)
• NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3a and Figure 3b)
• Delineated Waters of the U.S. [Figures 4 (Sheets 1-11)]
• Wetland Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters (OOC-01 WM - OOC-05WM)
• Wetland Determination Data Forms
• USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
• NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms
• Field Photographs
• Agency Concurrence Letters
Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please contact me at [phone] or
eric.mularski(a)hdrinc,com to schedule a site visit or if you have any questions or require additional
information after your review.
Sincerely,
Eric Mularski
Environmental Scientist
CC: Mr. Ray Maxwell, Public Works Director, Gaston County
Ms. Mary Knosby, Project Manager, HDR
Mr. Matthew Shultz, Project Manager, HDR
NOR Epinaarial.Inc. aftAo Carolinas
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
I, gn y ?11 a x L., e/l, PC , representing Gaston County, hereby
certify that I have authorized Eric Mularski, representing HDR Engineering, Inc.,
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and
acceptance of the verification of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Section
404/401 permitting associated with the High Shoals Sewer Interconnect Project,
in Gaston County, North Carolina and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
LZA y Ae-, )L U., c 11 , toc.
Applicant's name
Applicant's signature
Eric Mularski
Agent's name
?', . ? V
I RAM - 91
Agent's Si ature
I
Date
`311
Date
201 10 1 1 9
o`'of WArF9oc
H
O r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 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
le. 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. C] Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? [] Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: High Shoals Interconnect Project
2b. County: Gaston i1 Ma

2c. Nearest municipality / town:
High Shoals t-
2d. Subdivision name: N/A 2 2011
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A il>Et -WATS QUALITY
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Gaston County; POC: Ray Maxwell
3d. Street address: P.O. Box 1578
3e. City, state, zip: Gastonia, NC 28053-1578
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: C1 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: Eric Mularski
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
5c. Street address: 440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202-1919
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
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): See attached property owners table
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: Longitude: -
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Mulitple unnamed tributaries to the South Fork Catawba
proposed project: River and Little Long Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: South Fork Catawba River (WS-IV and WS-IV; CA), and
Little Long Creek (Class C)
2c. River basin: Catawba River Basin
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:
According to the land cover and land use classification adopted by North Carolina, the project property and surrounding
properties are classified as forested land, agricultural, and residential land.
The proposed project involves the installation of force main, gravity sewer line, and five (5) duplex submersible
wastewater pump stations. The proposed utility has been located at minimum 100 feet from the top of bank of the South
Fork Catawba River. The selected alignment includes the following:
- 35,509 LF of 8-inch through 15 inch gravity sewer
- 19,538 Lf of 4-inch through 10-inch force main piping.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total wetland acreage within the construction corridor is 0.05 acres. Temporary impacts will be 0.04 acre. Permanent
wetland impacts will be 0.01 acre.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Estimated linear feet of existing stream in the construction corridor is 320 LF There will be nine stream crossings with 270
LF of temporary impacts (30 LF per crossing) and 90 LF of permanent impacts (10 feet per crossing). The three South
Fork Catawba Rivers crossings will be bored to avoid any impacts to this stream.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The High Shoals Sewer Interconnect project would extend service to High Shoals, the Gaston County Landfill, the Gaston
County Power Generation Facility, the Gaston County Energy Park, and potentially other property owners along the
sewer alignment with aging septic systems. High Shoals currently owns and operates 2 poorly performing wastewater
treatment plants (WWPT). The primary purpose of the interconnect project is to decommission these 2 plants and convey
wastewater to the City of Gastonia's Long Creek WWTP.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The High Shoals Interconnect project includes renovations to the existing High Shoals collection system, extending the
wastewater collection system to unsewered areas of High Shoals currently on aging septic systems, decommissioning the
2 existing package wastewater treatment plants, and extending the outfall downstream to the Long Creek WWTP. The
project includes the construction of 5 waste water pump stations and installation of approximately 35,509 LF of gravity
sewer and 19,538 LF of force main piping. Standard construction equipment will be used such as excavators, backhoes,
hauling trucks, etc.
Page 3 of 11
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: JD is concurrently requested with this PCN

? Yes ®No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
? Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Agency/Consultant Company:
Other.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
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 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
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 M P ®T
Clearing Bottomland
Hardwood Yes ® Corps 0.01 (P)

Forested ? No ? DWQ 0.04 (T)
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
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
29. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: Contours will be returned to existing grades. Backfill for the installation of pipe was considered fill and clearing
is considered both temporary and permanent due to the need to clear for installation and for the permanent maintanence
corridor.
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 - or
(PER)
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? PC] T See table
attached See table attached ? PER
? INT Corps
? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T PER Corps
? INT ? DWQ
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
3i. Comments: The 40 ft. of impact length is for construction; however, the maintenace corridor for the project will be 10' wide.
Installation of the force main and gravity lines will be at or near perpendicular to the stream and will consist of an open cut
trench excavatation lined with rip rap below the normal hiah water level. The line will he huried R-7' dppn Tha stream
Page 5of11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
crossings will be at grade and should not impair aquatic life movement.
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 individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?PEIT
03 ?PEI 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.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(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:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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. Neuse Tar-Pamlico
? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? Catawba Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
TemporaEy (T) impact required?
61 ? P ? T Yes
No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
No
B3 ? P ? T Yes
No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
All stream crossings are at perpendicular angles to reduce impacts to channels. Shifting of the alignment was made to avoid
and minimize stream crossings. Installed rip rap to stabilize the stream crossings at the original elevation of the stream beds.
The river crossings will be bored installation to minimize impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Disturbed wetland areas will be returned to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native riparian species.
Temporary wetland impacts will consist of excavating and buring (at a minimum of 4ft. deep) the utility lines below current
wetland elevations. The construction corridor in wetlands and at stream crossings will be 40 feet wide. Permanent impacts to
wetlands will consist of woody vegetation removal and permanent maintenance of the 10-foot wide corridor. Crossings to the
South Fork Catawba River will be horizontal boring with steel casing pipe or horizontal directional drilling . Sediment and
erosion control measures will be employed during construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
? Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
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.
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 8of11
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?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Yes No
? ?
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? <1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Installation of force main and gravity
sewer will be not create additional impervious surface. Pump stations will create less than <1 % imperious serface
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
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
3a. In which local governments jurisdiction is this project? Gaston County
Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): Water Supply Watershed
Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ORW
(check all that apply): Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
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
Page 9of11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. 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: An Environmental Assessment was conducted as part of the
Engineering Report approved by NCDWQ. The project was below the thresholds
that require a SEPA document.
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.
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.
Long Creek WWTP (NPDES permit NCG110056) is owned and operated by the City of Gastonia. Long Creek WWTP has
a permitted capacity of 16.0 mgd and is currently treating an average flow of approximately 8.0 mgd. The plant's treatment
process includes primary clarification, 5-stage BNR with post-anoxic basins for denotrification, secondary clarifiers, tertiary
sand filters, chlorine disinfection and dechlorination, and post-aeration. The plant currently provides service to the cities of
Gastonia, Ranlo, and Lowell. Long Creek WWTP's performance has been exceptional in recent years and achieving excellent
permit compliance. Long Creek WWTP has excess capacity and a viable partner for High Shoals and Gaston County
wastewater flow.
Page 10 of 11
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?
C3 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?
Natural Heritage Program and USFWS databases, field surveys (2010), and project concurrence letters (dated 2/19/2010
and 4/28/2010)
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?
NOAA Fisheries Fish Habitat GIS coverage.
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?
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National Register listed properties GIS coverage and database search.
SHPO concurrence was received on 11/11/09.
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: Topography will be returned to pre-construction grades.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Flood Insurance Rate Maps
?
Eric Mularski 111 1/28/2011
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name A lican Age' ign ure Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of Stream Name Perennial Type of Average Impact
number- impact (PER) or jurisdiction stream length
Permanent (P) intermittent (Corps -404, width (linear
or Temporary (INT)? 10 DWQ - (feet) feet)
(T) non-404,
other
S 1 (P/T) Rip-rap Little Long PER Corps 20-25 10 (P)
Creek (SN) 30 T
S2 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South INT Corps 6-7 10 (P)
Fork (SI 30 (T)
S3 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South INT Corps 6-8 10 (P)
Fork SD 30 T
S4 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South INT Corps 15 10 (P)
Fork (SC) 30 T
S5 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South PER Corps 8-10 10 (P)
Fork SM) 30 T
S6 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South PER Corps 6-8 10 (P)
Fork SL 30 T
S7 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South PER Corps 8-10 10 (P)
Fork (SE) 30 (T)
S8 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South PER Corps 8-10 10 (P)
Fork (SE) 30 (T)
S9 (P/T) Rip-rap UT to South PER Corps 8-10 10 (P)
Fork (SE) 30 (T)
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 90 (P)
270 T
0
0
a
rri
a
m

m

N
m m

N

m ?
N
m
H
a,
m
H
m
01 m
m
01

..? M
m
H t!1
m
Ol 'o
1?
C m
n
H l0
01
op m
m
01 N
H
y N
H
H m
O1 V
M
H R
M
m
H V
^
V1
~
H V1

lp O1
m
m V
O
O m
H
m m
m O

n Q1
m e1
m 01
1? Q1
n
n
1D M
M N
N
R O
M
V V1
m Ol
M n

N

^ n
H N
N LD
lp lp
lD Ip
I? 1? N

M m lD N m N

W

V1

a

m ?

N
.N-1

M
M

j
m

N
m

m
m

?
H

m l
V

O
O

'f
O

O
I?

m H
n

m
tD
V
a

VI
00
O
V
M
M
m N
OD

a N
m

m
C

LD
d'

m
V

m
N
V

M
V

m
V

m
V

m
O

m

H N
N

1? m
m

O r
m

H
N

N
1?

m
m N

N
m V

N
M N

t0
a

N T

l?0

m T

0

01

l

H

m

N
H m
a
m
M
m
M
H
a
a O
v a
a N
H N
H m

co Vl
m m
N .-I
a H
a m R R N
a O V V C V O N

°
N
N m H m m
H Qf H h 1? l0 Ol n
H O
N V
a IP
m m m H
N

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m m m m
m m m m m m
m

O
m
m m

°

O
m
m m m m m
m f°
m
m
m
m m m
m

V

M
p H
H
U
O
m O ID N m a
v m

O
u m
O
U
O U O O
O O

V
a O
V 00 O
M
m
N
O O
N Q
p O

p
C?
U U U a V V U N U V U U U
O Q o0 0 O O O 0 o O 0 0 p
m
a 1^
V m y H
V Vf
V m
m V
m N
M O
M m
N 111
N M
N m
N m
N O m
H M
H m
O
H m
O Q
D l0
o y
O N
O N
O
U
0
O U
0
O V
0
O V
0
O V
0
p V
0 U
O
O U
O
O V
0 U
O
O V
O
O U
O
O U
O
O U
O
O U
O
O U
0 U
0 U
3
0 U
O
O U
0
U 0 U
0 V
0 U
0 U
O U
O U
O

m
?D
N
m
y
N
01 p
O
Qf
I?
m
N
N O
H
H
V
a
V
V
V
M
N
N
N
N
O 0
Q1 0
m
to
a
N
N
H 0
m 0
0 0
n 0
9 0
V
V
O O

m
M
N O
H O
H
R
U R
U V
V V
V V
V V
U V
U t±1
V V
V M
U M
U m
U m
V m
V M
U m
V - N
6 - N
6 - N
6 - N
6 N
6 N
6 N
U N
V N
U N
V N
U N
U N
V N
V N
U H
U H
U H
V H
U H
U H
U H
V O
V H
V 0
V 0
U 9 0
V 0
U 0
U 0
U 0
U 0
U 0
V 0
V 0
V
O
0 o
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0
0 0
0 1
1
0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0

a
N
01 V
1?
O m
O
7 m
n
V m
O
V N
H
V M
V1
N w
O
O a
n
a a
m
m O
m
Ol V
10
V m
ID
t? H
ID
N m
Vf
n O
w
n N
H
V m
m
I? m
m
n m
m
H H
N
V m
m p
N
H H
N
H lA
lD
H m
H
H h
H
H Vf
H
H i?
H
H Q1
H
H o
O
N N
O
N H
V m
a T
m ?O
r w
N m
H m
m o
O N
H m
H n
m I
0 w
Ifs m
Vl h
V1 l0
N N
m '
m o
m

ID
111
ID

H
M
H

N
m
01

H
m
H

N

N
Ol
T

H
M
O

N
111
1l1
l0

H
V1
m

ti
ll1
O
N
l0

- H
lp

- H
lp

m

rl
lp

H
-
I?

-
\p

-
H
m

-
Ol

N O
n

-
m

t0 H
'?-1

m
V

N H
m

H O

H

N
<}

N H
7

N H

N
m

LD

ti
m

-
Ol

H
m V
Ol

- H lD
Ol

- H V
Ql

- H !?
01

H
m I?
01

tp n
Q1

- H n
Q1

--I m
Ql

- lD
Ol

-
H 111
m

N m
H

^
H m
H

--I lO
H

n

rl m
H

!?

H ll1
H

? n
H

n

H n
H

n

rl !?
H

n

H
C
Y
O
°
J
0 0 r
Q
x
r
z z
z
z W
v

V z
Y
m Fn
co -
LL
Z
z
m w a
7 z
¢ Q
r u'
a y
z °
z O
° Z z y
z
w w
Q x w 3 N z w O Q ?-
w y a l¢7 Y w
m u
z a z Q z J J u J 1
o 3 x
an LL s LL
° ¢
3
o w o
O z
'^
m v
m O w
F-
l^ g w
Y ?j O Y
O Y
p
z Q
V m
U y
7 u
0 f V
Z
= Q Q Q
m Q J
JQ
y
w
g u
2
z ¢
w x
u 11
3 r0
0
y
r
Z

Z
0
°
7
O p
a'
7
° ?
F-
Z y
r
Z
u a
° ,
°
a
Z

Q
u
w
p
Q
z

z ¢ co
m J w
w w

o
r I
i
m

0
a
U v1

g
w In

g z

v1

In Q

Z
J
a
a
2

U

3 a

Z Q

Z
7
o 7
o oil W Z
w a Z 7
o 7
o F
LL Z Z
g 2
r
7 2
r
.6 -6 m y w Q oil u
LL p
m
LL °
a
m °
a
m
a o7f w
z O
m
w °a
W
Q
r
2
¢ m
0 z
0 O
r w
w otf
ac
,a
F.. w 0
r 0
r

u
V
CY
Y
a r
z
u
u
oa
¢
0 7
0
-+ z

l
a cc

O
J
j

e2!
m
66

Z
m
m
m
m
Q
Q
°
cif
w

l7 J ° w

> °
r
O
r
O
Q
3
O

w
a
a
¢
Q
Z

0

r z

0 w

z
z
o
z
0
z
o
o
g
z
o
z
0
x
? m

3 \ v1
w
z
o
r
W oi

w
°
w

>
3

°
2

a
w J

7
_
m
?
?

a
?

a
?

a LL

w
J
y
m
°tl
r

a
o

z
z

-
o

z
g
g
?

w
°

¢
?

Q

a

Q

? w

.
n
a r
<
Q z
Q
m
¢ F

o
z
¢
°
- r
1^
a r
1^
s t7
Q
> z
x
o ¢
r
a Y
m
7 Y
m
7 z
m
w
m
o Y
u
Q
?
a z
z
>
a
? y
m
I m
m
o

a m
m
o r
w 7 J

J
Z
z m
z
a

w

a m

w w
m
o =

`-'

o J

w

o 1^

3 v1

3 O

5
°
w z

J z

o O

? O
g ° 3 m m r Y r U U ? w Y Q ° V V
X L. X Figure 1
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Gaston County I High Shoals Interconnect Project I Nationwide Permit 12
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Gaston County I High Shoals Interconnect Project I Nationwide Permit 12
f a/J t
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Gaston County I High Shoals Interconnect Project I Nationwide Permit 12
ONE COMPANY i Many Solutions
Gaston County I High Shoals Interconnect Project I Nationwide Permit 12
•p-
C(D
. ?fO ° ffi . •? ??: k .4, 1 1-SY?..+'C'n i w `y ?`t r?i V / C
tid• 1s ,? t ?? : ? 1 y ? ? a
s 4y i a x 1 3
4 7.3
rl/S ?i fn a
"?,.^.+c,? i + O
/ ,/`•/ ?p n ` pig 1 * j ! ?!yG C• It
11J ? r ae y . 6
Ph. to
rn LL O ?+a 1?& jj '? tc,Y
L ?'" C
V:l/?V'L ?r il'? }4?: ,.SY?}-0 nl•;???? }?t' •f `17 r Q y till
41?t •?„1?1 ,..y - I°- ??'1S -tlpd„.:?3; .tv.
a^y ?.?? 'r,. ?1 } 4 R'Y;??. ?? :r?? •!' (?.+t kft ??p'?'C????"?ny' ?,? ? y???'7?, ?,wi ??
r 1 dd f p ?`
?•' 444,,, 111 N,•s?c $ ? - 1 a ?` ,? •. ''d?l ? ?'\.?? '?S% y,. Tn. ft , s '?.1. 7Y.
i "r• 1
. :E ,iT`" `? 1,1[''_ ?..J?,'T j ? it ? f? 4iT ^?.??'. •i?' y^^'??. ? ? A?{1 l y.
?, ,.,i ? t _F°`Y?? ?.?',S."r?c.`; .t'y?;. *d j• .da ' ? 1• { i? 4??1,,?A t i ?? 1 ?iy, r y NM: ? t ?, ,.,y? F?{' ?YY 4 .?'
`?'#,?? .. `? `''+'i+°?x'???_ ?Sni... -^f'Y ?" ?;'_' ?? ? r k?? ?1:???t+ir+C 7R?hs?' 1 ?'? Ya;,k• s' •i ?1 ?5 Z:
?j p ? • "it'd 1? i J,,
+Yr.,
i' t~ c i.-ylf??[ r z ,' at `e xr tJ ?jx w
40- -
? a ?4 k
?'te ?' ,r r pr ?r 11'R4?r ? ,r • ? } ? x?i A •? r ?
'-.'?7 t K'. , ? w •f - ?e ? ? ! ??` • rty a "4 ?, ? ,t '? "?{' :A, '?fff 3??y?1 ? ;?`y'? ?t(? M?'t?? .
'.?.?a? +i'? tr ,?•' ?"r+ - `. ? _ ?f tti ?ly'.t ?fY " r 1 ? ? ? ? ?+ ??? i'? 4{?ti4?a '° `. i4^,^? i f y i p•4`.
I`_.. y ?` _ r • Y^.?. t? }:.': ?y` s't,'ts «+e'k'3-.Fz•''1"`".'gr,$?}`^-
;-r Z '? ?• *er:? \1sy r??. ,:?n ?ti? tiv?vt: ?? y ? ? 4.a
r hfi ?,'?'BC ?'. ? ?, .' ? •r ? ? '?, j" M ,.'? t?'.? ? L '`F:c.. °`$'`Alis"`t,a ,f ?? a{, Y .k'1?. ?.;?.Ie?t_
? ? ?r.+ j?"6?. ??r ? •{?;? r ~?„C, ?,?{? ;¦ ark r'`+, , yp?? y ?h"??jfsv, '.N?a?trst4?ta...6
1` r6('• ;r,.,.. '1... ?':•: `?F p/„syy - :J.?i.' ib ?,1: Una'?° t b 'S,'4' '"5, f.!-4?r
ff u : ,. P r' F YStZ'i.{ } r a"Fy ` t 'K. `y S' Y?' syt'r t' 4l1z? .yea.
I .
},y 'a`?}t?,y[' l y. -... L P SIMN '1
,A"h,
?.« i Ski, j, fJ??• t : ???y++rssa qy 1 ?. s ,,,r< tiM'
,?c ..?' w t t y 1 k v' i ,?,y m t?
'a ? n ix,??,r T,aj. ?. `??, c ?t)•`+ I?,y?"4ii +l"t?`F"ai???.ir
?,? ,
(y p? 7 ?
r ?w'?i-??r '• ' ? ?? 'T -? r .1 ' s a: ? ? ? y `?.f 4 tk y i, ?! ? b ! 4F. X'! k ? ? ? r :7+a? •• :[ ?. t{-.
+ arF ?. - ? . ? ,. `'? r. ?! I ? r?^?•S? ???+? ? ? ?' It tlyk? ? x9 ?'`rd ?. ?' ?; ? -
,a,7`,a r i' }'a+ •' f Vt r ,; 1i 4 ry 4 i? `?"x. ;'r a,$ k.,r
Oka
C .? `, ! f , t.'`++?({?i9' ti`, + . { i 7 x p^ ,£ . :, sy 'f .."?;• . ?5•Dl i rj r r !1'"? x ?'
r C:) e ''?* • } F:.!("",t x-? ? . J?:?y?ry?,"'t3 :?' ?? YItt+FY?{?1d't'fi?i???? !' { t i ,r;, FR ?S, y ?? ? A ,4 ?$y? ? ,
"..{ .1 17T11!`*
7f?ei (?q} :tile' y a' G,;? `+1yt t1 y w 1 a tiKY ?9 ! , °k a If
M' , ', -!>
JAI?
N as to o 4 {y? F,, F,; ?:? Q? N1W 833N3dS.010 _ _t. i ` f ,' R. ''',1 • 1, ,•,
co CN
,?y tL
7 +A 'O O .1-
z 'n V) Lr)
In u) A''` t 1 r
¢rt??a?pk tf
C a dyLtl? 1 1 .a? ".s. .? I ^ .
dk
t, ,,. J y r 1•' J,,..?.
rn-
EE F-
C) CD Co
m` a
V d LL"! M M Cn M
.r c?•t r?i c`°i to
Sp'?',? Y'< $' ' r" y ' 1 i t ?'_. 1 a .•C ` .?
Z ay iY °?t r '.
•- F 7
0 o y, f. t X14 a 4L
m d oo C> 0 0
1
w a Z Z Z
U) Z r}F t '? :. y -'.S z +•« '{
to N to cn U) Cn ?e• y i .1 )
I,r1 1 - k1" ?1, Yn {,
r7N
rdYty LPL O
O
`t >>t?i9 R 4 O
++ a Y p
U) co 0 71 V_
d F- p cc U IiS h r! o
C7) a -4
d G1 -lr _,i^ A
c coo y
cc 0 a-
(D C>
c v -v p7 O
Q U H e E C eo ea N O C
11 C5
C) C,
CL r + :. lC r. Ri ( y(,;AYf. + , 513 4 .?a y?1?: (?
t'`1 cA a C9 cn 'S D U y>,.,', .- r c z
.? O z
0
w
0
N
,r 1t;
N
fi
O
fi
r
O
C
C
z
?o
U
W
'? O
w
0
M
v1=
h
ti
z
00o
`U
.? w
Eq 0
^ N
r
T -
? a
IL
C1 c
L c
? W
Z
Q
a
rn t5
ii
0
0
h
c
z
/2
`, O
U
w
040
-I
4-
0
LO
v -
? a
LL
d
c
c
c
x
N
fi
O
.t
ti
O
C
z
U
,w
o
040
w
0
CD
T
m
s
v
rn
U-
fi
z
00
?O
U
w
E40
^ N
r
r
? a
? v
L o
U)
z
iU
e
rn
ii ?
L
m
a
N
fi
O
fi
r
0
h
fi
C
z
/c
?WW
-00
^ N
r
r
O m
a
co
v
c
Ll? o
co 9
ZZr
7 Q

N
fi
O
fi
v
O
C
z
a
??
,0
U
W
z
0
r-
w
0
m
T
m
a?
t
cn
v
rn
a
N
fi
O
w
r
O
C
z
a
,o
U
w
40
w
0
0
m
L
d'
7
LL
s
N
O
ti
O
vJ
fi
C
z
d
?2
?O
U
w
z
0
^ N
r
0 d
CL
3
d o
L
(n z
j a
rn ?
LL I c
N
0
V
0

z
a
,o
U
W
40
U
w 1
r, 1
Lo I
Li
It i
r7
N
m
a
? ? Z a 4P??'
0
-1 I
m
m o
?o
r?x-
U _2
t.
?

z
a

Zd.
o O

oe
o ?
l
o Z
0
?s
1
o e?
rz a
0
?s
?
5?
F U e?`
!?S Q
0
lop,
0b0
y
Niy
1N,
ory
b-11N
3c/S
0?0
DALLAS STANLEY HIGHWAY
06
od
?a
?o
1
d?
J?
s
?a
Z?3 O
o
0
3
N °o
3
0
0
U
rn
CJ
Q
N
j`

No HW 214

O

G
3

w O
O
w N
0Q
z
3
Q
Z J Z
o Rz ? w
?O(L

?pz
3
s

o
zvg o 0
p o z
LU w

ODZ
Z)w
g°o
wN
3Q
IL
0
V
w
z
J z
QO
Ow
=w
V1 f..
Z
3
w
rn
s?L
4
??.LSHO ?'
C
3

?'IW LI?SI?II llOUIV l tgd'QW'WMlU9W?EROLE0PM1?A?0.?
1 U 1 m I
m
r

Ln

n
N
- L
Q
?0
?0a
v~i N
Z J
Q
?za
ofd'
W
v) a.

W
}V7
K OpN
3bIL
N
? J ltj'
I ?M °
? I
\, I I
l\,I
I I
I I
? I
I I
I
I I
I I?iI I
I j ?i I I I
I I I °
I I I
I I I I ?
I }I 0 ? w 3
w o
am
I F ?
N
Paz gg
I 0,3 a a??
L) °
I Oaz °
i
_!
p O < < !
[ OO w a a w L
i z
3 O 3 `
O U w WZ Z O Z_ 1
Z Z 7 1
o a S
sn z ?I
3 z° 3 3 rn ra z
2 W Z O w w Vl } K Q
! z A a°
7- M7 FM
oN? N ? - ? I I I I L
10 li
`I\
I .i

to
hIN
s N
q
OM mO
L
I ?
I ?
II
I II
W V4 ?\ m
UZI
F ?y
oLO2' .. \ 2aN
/ by
ObO.
WUN7 /
NNQ /
Qaha
W2 jlN /
33MO /
/
W L°o?
/
ohm I ( F3I
M° I I ? 3Mb
3 I ? I o?m
I I ?"o
I
mw -
31tl0
m
smuH
'ON 1NQld N03HO LOH
0
U
Q
a
0
z
w
z
U W??
d a
H-
Q aaz °n
°
W
cn Z
? I I I I ? ?
w
cQ
z3
a J
za
0
4H0
W V
J G
?_
0 fY
z
5°
~ y
W
3Q
a
S7
S
G
3
0
w O
=o
3
v,
3
0
U p
o
o
w wJ
J
°
V
w
z
J z
°
o?
xw
c?
c=7 z
=w
3
w
N
? sEAt
se?
S
gs Id
?? WV /2?9t?11 LLOT/L6IL tqd'O+P'WMIO:MgL6ZOCZpNWI?fN?.?.O?:?

Lr)
N
C)
U
m
Q
Z sz?? M I ? ? ? III, ' ?
I
22h? d I ?l l l I ,
`, I
JMO = . I
I I
N I
I II I S,i.`., U, .l
z
z
ma

Q?QZCL 33ro? z ky 0az
l+]Wd' ?2h x ? lil ??J
fi
N a n
(
W

Z
Z
;Qwl
/
N N = /
mules,
3lM SMIIN 3lW SMI1M
31YO :'ON ININd >133H3 NCH
z
V <Qaz o
W?:r
Q w??
? a
Q paw o
la] a a Z n
d, o
I w
N ? U
wf _
M i o
J
d_W
a
Qa? b
la7 a a W M
W
? W - J
9
M ? o
VI F
0
0 F
o
a
0
O
U
w p Q a
Z L) W y
4Z7 Q ~ = f.1
0 H f Z Z
a z o a a
? a n w 9E
Q p u Z O 3 rco?
o F O
x Of o. Z w a i
w a o s a U
Z a P 5
Z 2 Z
Z
3 H N ; U U
3 L Z
z 3 3 N } < ?
Q OZ Z O N N N F
zw Q a? 427
r W X N W 1-
0. 171
? 0 3 3? a 7 G N N ? ? 04
Ilil E?
III `
Qm
W
d'
0
U
a
0
z
w
W
fl
J
za
4HQ
W
J G
N
0
z
O
~ N
LLI
a
a
2
3
N
O
w O
= O
N
zn
s
v,
o a
ci II
00
z
w N
0
W
Jz
QC
01%
N W
i-
2 z ?
23
W
CO)
$EAL
°v 4kvm
6i
l
?E
J$
W
Q.

m
N w
a

o
N

Y
J
Y D o
o
} O
0
QQ N ED O
< J oo
w o o zz Of
Q U U K m
Z V
W w
U D
Z
O
W
Q. W
Q.
n?wow*u'wv zc:u:u uoa?vi mw'owwnzooamzczaaoa?o?wa'M:o
00 1
r I

m
t
M
N
0
U
m
X -?
Q
?za
W k
?w
?a
0
Qz
` fV
N \
\ \ WNh
\ \ cno?
\ \ b
h m
Q NI ?p \ \
\ \ \? /
\ \
S

3 \. \ >
U \ \ U
\ \ Y

\ ` Y x
r \
\ .r
\ U

2 -
/ b

/
4f,
/

4 4

(dam) 3Ni ? ?? ?
?b3dpyd _. 4 4
4 4

4

4
U
J
J
O
^

O?
?NR
N
Xh
?Mp
m
4
U
.I Q
?Z3
W
u) a
Z I I .I ?
I
? I I I I
I II
ICI ?
I I .I I ?
I I
I I +
Z I ? I ?+
I I i I + +> +
+ + +
?mNd' I I I I +
?mON Vy1
30N? I Vl
=x?° I I I I I ?
I I I l I

O
J
O
x

lluu W qj \

\

pie awr ammo va m>a3w swauaewm
nw rnwH
31va :'ON 1NI8d N33HO MOH
QX
lil
O
U
a
m
O
z
•
N
In
z
g
3
0
U
a
0
z
U
g
3
0
U
d
O
z
w
LJ U F
?0.Z O
U m??
a a
(L °n
WSJ
°
a
W a Q
O U W W ?
z O
¢ a S
z z
3 ° ° a a w
w U
Zp z F
O ? Q U 15
a z m W W
z z z m a~
v~i w 0 i
3 3 0 z [
°w In rn z z \.. 3 3 ti k
O 3202 W O 0 N (n }
LLo
0 3 31,7 a G IN
? I 1 1 1 4
l I I I '
?:?:? i I I I I
I I I I I t

M
O
= O
W y O

z3
Q
z Q
0 rn
o
z
1- 0
W F-
°a
z V U :I
C °
11^1N W
z U
in N
OR
WN
3Q

0
?I
V
W
J Z
Q0
0?
N
= Z I
2W
3
w
N
? SEAL
? O
sv
iE d
^????'WV OS?BI?It IIOZIILI'1qd'a'V'YlMW:10gy[Lp(Lpp?M\?p?'M?J
0
55 -,
r
I
A I I i
U
a
L
I; .I
I I, ?I I
? I I I
a:
w
wQ I I I /
z I ?-
?z3 ?= I
Z CL
?W I I
Nd ?pq? I I ? 2pro
U?4 I
I I mph
,Mm
°? li II
1
41,
0
r

?TCE? \ \
LJ Q \ \ \
qz
w W a \ \ \ \
of
o
2 p W

\ y n1
N o \ \ \ \ \ \ 3NIl d1213d021d

°O?' N.

UO
u
Lj a
?Z3
?LLJiR
W
Na
t
a
? I
I I
M
aQ
mZ3
?O?
a-
N
? J
.Q
fZ3
W
N a.
- I
m
H
N wH?
~ ?aaz o
a a
? aaz n
o
? W
I ? w
N
Paz °
Q a
a
Q aa
?z r°
l.] W J
0
00 W
I w
N
W
- - TCE I __,
I
-?, I o wt-=
°p ? ?az o
i"/
t I l i l i I \?;
z
v~i a
W U I
In I I i i ,;?I ? I
i?Cl \y I_ I i I I_
? In
? "? ° Z'-' w I I I ? n
j, ° ? I I I I ?°^
LLZ I l i I I ?S W?a
7 I z
L
UNa ? ? 1 111 1111 11 11 /
1 1 1 / \\
C) 1 1 1 ?, 1 1 ,? /
C)
„m 1 111 11 1 / ?
1
IM° N' 1 11 11 1 1 ?'
w c°i 1 1 111 11 1 z
} 1 1 1 11 1 1I
1 ? WNW
1 11 11 ` ?7W? ¢w oNa
1 1 11 11. 1. I F c?j 3p3 N0
1 _1 11 11 1 1 ?? s°m
1 1 11 1 ?
1 11 11 1
:u mmei, sump
- - 53- :I8 mM9`
rmura
-
!I f
:RVO 'ON 1NINd N03HO MOH
as
W
F-
U)
0
Q
a
O
z

W
0
Q
a
O
z
z }
V ° ![
U V)
J
z Q z z
p O Q Q S
? v ? a 0_ w
¢ w} u z 3 i
0- z o F J i
i i
z z z a ~
z z z
Z ?
O V0 } Q Q'
a O OZ LL, z
Jw I.l_ d v ?,I I
z L25
0 3 3 a ?i I-n y a 0LL j
19 l I I I IQIII
l I I I`'
Poa
Poa
"I I f
U)
LU
p
Z J
Q
9z
W O
Z Q
J N
0w
0
Z
go
F U)
W
3Q
a
7
I
7
I
t7 i
S
H
V
W
J Z
QO
= W
= Z
C7 ?
2 3
,WA
v/
3
0
w ?
=o
rn
a
v
a °
° a
I II
v
o
o
w
a
z ?
w ?
J
°
$EAL
??d SE14 '$

nuwuwmu'yp Co tnt IIoTIIVltgd'O.W'Y4N/R?oo1ZLZOLLON.0INR
oaao_z o
W J
y`
^
Vl F
}r
CW
'?i ?pObf
2??
I °
rr
w
N
I.l
J mph
/ ?MO
00 1
r, I
LO

v
M
N
0
U
m
a
?
? 1 I 1 1
1 X11
I'I '.
?
I
I I
I 11 ? II I
'
I ' I
1
I I 'I
II I
II II I I
I

4 4 4
/ 4 4 4

\

Z

+

I I
I I
+

Z II? I

m I I ? ? ?
3 ? I I ? ? I I ? ? ? ?
I
I I I j I ? ? ?
I II?I I I ? ? ?
? I I I I ? ? ? ?
I I; ? I I ? ? ?
I I; ? I I ? ? ?
I I I I Mt ? ? ?

I I? ?I I ? ? ?
I
I II I 4Z

2rym
m ? I I ,
I I ?y '? ?
ho
r;Na I I I I I ? ? ? ? ?
2 i o
oo?
I I Ii I I
I I I ? ? ? ?1

I I M>
I
I> l i I I I -) ? ? ? ?

I`, I ?a?

I

I
I ; I 4 4

I I ICI ? ? ? ? ?
I I I I I I
I ? ? ? ?
3Lw smuH
?31tl0 ?'ON 1NRId N03H0 NOH
z
w
0
<?
Z K H Z 2
a o ° a a w 7'7
} p H
w v z 3
0
_ o V
a z
a w
z z
3 ? F :F( N - Z- w U C
3 3 r o ? z aL
W 0z w O 0 N N } } <
of on x 0
I I I I
.7.1 FM
III
I I I ??? ?
III
? I I l l f
N N
M
m ?
?I w
tO• a
f2
U
a
? a a
° z
3' 3
w
3 a
? a
A

3
0
U) W o
w N O
Ga
z
3
a
?
za
O

3
Z
0 i

0

°a
zQ 0 ,

Wy
C? w
z
CD N
z ' `
50
Wy
3Q

0
v
w
C4 z
a0
Ov
2LU
? W
H
Z
= W
W
W
SEAL
sv
E
^'IW LGLI?It IIWJIVI'qld'?pWMS0?0Vy[yp(ypq,glEupovM??
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect/ Wetland A City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 11/3/2009
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#1
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.385 Long: -81.181 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: CH - Chewacla loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil ? or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
Wetland data point is located in a storm water detention basin for the Gaston County landfill. This
feature has hydraulic connection with Stream E, a Relatively Permanent Water with perennial flow
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (136)
- Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ? Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (61) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-12
Water Table Present? Yes ? No Depth (inches): surface
Saturation Present? Yes ? No Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Strong wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
= Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Salix nigra 20 Yes OBL FAC species x 3 =
2 Platanus occidentalis 10 Yes FACW- FACU species x4=
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 No FACW UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
'
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0
10.
'
(Provide supporting
4 - Morphological Adaptations
32 = Total Cover _
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
1 Scirpus cyperinus 10 Yes OBL -
2 Typha spp. 10 Yes NI
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. unless disturbed or problematic
resent
be
.
,
p
4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6 f
i
h
DBH
dl
g
), regar
ess o
more in diameter at breast he
t (
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
12.
20 = Total Cover woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.

Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
6 Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominant species have an indicator status of FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks
0-24 7.5YR 5/6 100 silt clay Fill from adjacent uplands
8-16+ Gley1 3/10Y 100 silt clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Bright sandy soils (fill from adjacent uplands) are evident in the upper 12/24 inches of soil.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect / Wetland B City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 11/3/2009
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#2
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.386 Long: -81.18 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: CH - Chewacla loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland data point is located in a forested wetland. This wetland abuts Stream E, a Relatively
Permanent Water with perennial flow. Stream E is a tributary to the South Fork Catawba River, a
Traditional Navigable Water.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly) - Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
v Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (134)
- Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-6
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Strong wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#2
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Betula nigra 10 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2 Platanus occidentalis 10 Yes FACW-
Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
20 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Alnus serrulata 20 Yes FACW+ FAC species x 3 =
2 Comus amonmum 10 Yes FACW+ FACU species x4=
3 Acer negundo 10 Yes FACW UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
40 =
Total Cover -
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Impatiens capensis 10 Yes FACW -
2 Saururus cemuus 10 Yes OBL
3 Boehmeria cylindrica 5 No FACW+ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
resent
unless disturbed or
roblematic
be
p
p
,
.
4. fi
iti
f F
V
ti
D
t
St
t
n
ons o
our
on
ra
e
ege
a
a:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.

8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g• than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
it. and wood
lants less than 3
28 ft tall
of size
.
.
,
y p
12.
25 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominant species have an indicator status of FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/4 100 clay loam
2-12+ 2.5Y 5/2 70 2.5 YR 3/6 30 RM M clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators are evident.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect/ Upland Data Point City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 11/6/2009
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#3
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.385 Long: -81.181 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: ApB - Appling sandy loam, 1 to 6 % slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area ?
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No _
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Upland data point in between Wetland A and Wetland B.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (614) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) - Drainage Patterns (810)
- Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
- Water Marks (61) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (62) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (64) - Other (Explain in Remarks) - Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) - Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) - Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Water-Stained Leaves (139) - Microtopographic Relief (D4)
- Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#3
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Fagus grandifolia 20 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2 Pinus taeda 10 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
30 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Juniperus virginiana 20 Yes FACU- FAC species x 3 =
2 Ilex opaca 10 Yes FAC- FACU species x4=
3. UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
'
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0
10.
'
(Provide supporting
4 - Morphological Adaptations
40
= Total Cover _
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Vinca minor L 10 No NI -
2.
'
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
= Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4. Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation

g Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Upland species are dominant.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/3 100 silt loam
8-12+ 2.5Y 6/6 70 silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (A1) - Dark Surface (S7) - 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) - Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) - Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, - Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Upland soils are evident.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect/ Wetland C City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 12/11/2009
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#4
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.385 Long: -81.181 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Congaree Loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland data point for a scrub/shrub wetland located in the floodplain of the South Fork Catawba
River.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly) - Surface Soil Cracks (136)
- Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (614) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ? Drainage Patterns (610)
V Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (B4) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (65) Geomorphic Position (D2)
- Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Water-Stained Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (134)
- Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#4
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC: 3 (A)
,
,
2.

3 Total Number of Dominant
. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x2=
1 Acer rubrum 15 Yes FAC FAC species x 3 =
2 Rubus spp. 2 No NA FACU species x4=
3. UPL species x 5 =

4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-
9.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-
10.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
-
40 - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting

Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) =Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Andropogon glomertatus 20 Yes FACW+ - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Rhexia spp. 10 Yes NA
3 Dichathelium clandestinum 10 Yes FACW+ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

4 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height
.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in
DBH and
t
th
3
28 It
1
ll
t
.
grea
er
an
.
(
m)
a
.
10.

11. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
12.
30 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
V
t
ti
ege
a
on
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominant species have an indicator status of FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 4/2 60 10YR 5/8 40 RM M sandy clay loam
3-12+ 1 OYR 4/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 RM M sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) - Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
- Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators are evident.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect / Upland Wetland C City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 12/11/2009
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#5
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.359 Long: -81.16 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Congaree Loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Upland data point adjacent to Wetland C.
Is the Sampled Area ?
within a Wetland? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (A1) - True Aquatic Plants (1314) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) - Drainage Patterns (1310)
- Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - Crayfish Burrows (C8)
- Drift Deposits (133) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (B4) - Other (Explain in Remarks) - Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
- Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
- Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) - Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#5
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer negundo 20 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Acer rubrum 15 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
35 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Ilex opaca 10 Yes FAC- FAC species x 3 =
2 Ligustrum sinense 10 Yes FAC FACU species x4=
3 Juniperus virginiana 5 No FACU- UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
25 = Total Cover _
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
2.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. roblematic
be
resent
unless disturbed or
p
,
p
.
4. fi
iti
f F
V
t
ti
St
t
D
n
ons o
our
a
on
ra
a:
e
ege
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.

8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in
DBH and greater than 3
28 ft (1 m) tall
.
.
.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
11. lants less than 3
28 ft tall
of size
and wood
.
,
y p
.
12.
= Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominant species have an indicator status of FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/3 100 silt clay loam
2-12+ 10YR 3/4 100 sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) - Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
- Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (Il 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) - Redox Dark Surface (176) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) - Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Upland soils are evident.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: High Shoals Interconnect / Wetland Z City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 6/3/2010
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County State: NC Sampling Point: DP#6
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.365 Long: -81.167 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: CH - Chewacla loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes V" No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland data point is located in forested Wetland Z. This wetland abuts an ephemeral channel that
has an hydraulic connection to the South Fork Catawba River, a Traditional Navigable Water.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) - Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
- Surface Water (Al) - True Aquatic Plants (B14) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
- High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (131) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-1
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Strong wetland hydrology indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#6
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer negundo 20 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2 Acre rubrum 20 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
40 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x 2 =
1 Platanus occidentalis 10 Yes FACW- FAC species x3=
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Yes FACW FACU species x4=
3. UPL species x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20 = Total Cover _
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Impatiens capensis 10 Yes FACW -
2 Peltandra virginica 5 No OBL
'
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3• unless disturbed or
roblematic
be
resent
p
p
,
.
4. iti
of Four Ve
etation Strata:
D
fi
e
n
ons
g
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.

8.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. 28 ft (1 m) tall.
DBH and greater than 3
than 3 in
.
.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
11 28 ft tall
lants less than 3
of size
and wood
.
.
y p
,
12.
15 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height.
1.
2.
3.

4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation

6. Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominant species have an indicator status of FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvae Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/3 100 sandy clay loam
4-18+ 10YR 4/1 100 silty loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1) - Dark Surface (S7) - 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
- Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (A5) ! Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (176) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) - Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators are evident.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream A (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET`
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/14/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:00 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 177 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 250 LF
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.379 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.178
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line installation
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 70's clear and sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 50's light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.53 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? °m0 ?+' NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 20_% Agricultural
70 % Forested 10% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull Width: 20-25' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 12-15'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 49 Comments:
i;
Evaluator's Signature Date 1/28/2011
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 Continent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Order: 2nd
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream A

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
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
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. =max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Z 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
°-+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(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 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 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
0-4
0-5
0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
H (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints)
'??
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple: pool complexes 0-'3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
(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*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded - 0; loose structure = max)

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

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max rots)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0= 5
0- 5
4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
------ ------
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream B (indicate on attached
i
Am-
l o l l STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/15/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:00 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 864 acres 8. Stream Order: 2nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.335 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.144
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):

15. Recent Weather Conditions: 50's light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 50's cloudy
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
an point? YES la If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
_% Commercial _% Industrial 40% Agricultural
50 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull Width: 25-30' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 12-15'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 38 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - Date 10/15/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream B
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(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
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges ==max points)
5 Groundwater discharge -
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
r-'
(no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding `= max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints

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 0-4 0-5 1
r., (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks= max
points)
E
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
E-+ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA *
0'- 4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(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) 38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream C (indicate on attached `s
12 t SSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET t
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/15/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:00 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 121 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 245 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.344 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.149
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 50's light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 50's cloudy
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial Industrial 30% Agricultural
70 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull Width: 15' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 12'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 41 Comments:
G1 A
Evaluator's Signature --,__ -- - Date 10/15/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream C
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max poi S)
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 0-4 0-4 3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
f (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
?
v?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
r (no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain= max points)
Q Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent 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
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 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 0-4 0-5 1
?. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F-
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5'
0-5
2
_ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion; stable banks = max points)

Q'
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

rl5 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed= max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
E¦ (little or no habitat 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
d
18
Canopy coverage over streambed

0-5

0-5

0-5

3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0=4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded= 0; loose structure =max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0'-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts)
a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(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) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream D (indicate on attached

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/3/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:00 p.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 55 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 250 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.334 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.143
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line crossing
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunnv
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 70's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES W If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 20% Agricultural
80 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull Width: 6-8' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 8-10'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 49 Comments: Downstream near confluence with the South Fork of Catawba
River was dry and filled with fine sediment at the time of the site visit
Gin
Evaluator's Signature Date 11/3/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream D
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation= 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
04
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
d (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) _

U?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
-0-4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
x 7 Entrenchment l floodplain access 0-5 0-4 - 0-2 1
p-+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max poi s)

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0'-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition-- 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
0-4
0-5
1
r- (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F"
^
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Ra
d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints)
??
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0--5
4
(substantial impact 0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples or pools 0; well-developed = max points)

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*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types max points)
U
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0=4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max rots

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # Stream E (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/4/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:00 p.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 102 acres 8. Stream Order: 2nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1000 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.385 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.181
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS O`th?e Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunnv
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 70's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (91f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
50 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 50 % Other ( Landfill` )
22. Bankfull Width: 8-10' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 34'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 61 Comments:
p,
Evaluator's Signature Date 11/3/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream E
- F-4 F CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0;; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints)
a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
(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)
Z Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands= max oints)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 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 0-4 0-5 3
r. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F"
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(severe erosion 0; no erosion, stable banks = max omts)

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0=5
4
(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)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
F? (little or no habitat - 0; frequent, varied habitats= max' points)
CO
d
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0=5
4
(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
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish -
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
m
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0. abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE {also enter on first page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream F (indicate on attached
i ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski

3. Date of Evaluation: 11/6/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:00 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 120 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.389 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.177
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Q --field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):

15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications 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 point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
20 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 80 % Other ( Landfill )
22. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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:
Evaluator's Signature "`-
Date 11/6/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream F
ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS O
RE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
'
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(no flow or saturation ='0; strong flow = max
points)
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
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
? (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
v
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
f
r' (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Z,
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access'
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a' (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent 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 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0-5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,,,
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
0-4
0-5
3
F? (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
r-n
I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
©- 4
0-5
4
(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)
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(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
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish'
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 53
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream G (indicate on attached '
121 SSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/6/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:00 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 96 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.389 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.177
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunn
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications 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 point? YES W If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged 80 % Other ( Landfill )
22. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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:
Evaluator's Signature Date 11/6/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream G

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
'
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(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
3
(no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0=4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
r+
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0
2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points) -

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands= 0; large adjacent 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 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive de osition=' 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0-5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F*
13 Presence of major bank' failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
0.0 (severe erosion 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
E? (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-poot/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
F- (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(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
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no ev,?lcnce =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.
USACE AID#
I 1
DWQ #.
Site # Stream H (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/6/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 p.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 27.0 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 140 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.338 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.179
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunn
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications 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 point? YES (91f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential
70 % Forested
22. Bankfull Width: 5-6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%)
_% Commercial _% Industrial -% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged 20 % Other ( Landfill )
23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 51
Evaluators Signature Date 11/6/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream H
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
p
4
0-2
2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) -
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
3
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; littleor 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
0-4
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
p 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max
points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
'0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; Ire uent'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* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 10

0
::]

100

100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
* These charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
3
DWQ#,
Site # Stream I (indicate on attached
121 SSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/6/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 p.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 116.5 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 295 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.331 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.134
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Ohe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 60's sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60's sunn
17. Identify any special waterway classifications 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 point? YES 1f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial Industrial 20 % Agricultural
60 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other L__)
22. Bankfull Width: 6-7' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 10-12'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 40 Comments:
Evaluators Signature Date 11/6/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream I
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG[ON POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(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
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
04
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
A
r
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0- 4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition-- 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 0-4 0-5 3
(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
0-4
0-5
2
F+ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
- 4 '
0
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence= max points) ,
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0;-well-developed = max points)

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* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 -3
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence= 0; common, numerous types = max' points)
04
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 40
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #
Site # -Stream J (indicate on attached 3
1 1 2 1 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET'
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 11/6/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 p.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 45.5 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.32 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.128
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Q Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):_
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 50's heavv rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60's partly cloud
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES(O
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 20 % Agricultural
70 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 10 % Other ( pump station )
22. Bankfull Width: 15-18' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5-6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 40 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature LI -- - Date 11/13/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream J
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0
5 0
4

(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) - - 0-5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max poi s)
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

(extensive discharges =.0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
. 4
c!
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
i (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands -
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 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
0-4
0-5
3
?+ (deeply incised 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
?0
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
0-4
0-5
2
H (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4 -
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6 -
0-6
2
0-4 (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 *
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0=4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts

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) 40
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # Stream L (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 12/11/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 28acres 8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 700 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.356 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.154
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 50's sunnv
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 50's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 20 % Agricultural
70 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (___)
22. Bankfull Width: 6-8' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 8-10'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 50 Comments
Aci
Evaluator's Signature Date 12/11/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream L
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max poi s) 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
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

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
04 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0
(A
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural' meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 - 3
(extensive deposition-7- 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
0-4
0-5
3
(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
0-4
0-5
2
H (no visible roots 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0;'well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
x (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
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians =
0-4
0'=4
0-4 -
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max mts)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#.
-- - - - - -- ------- -
Site # Stream M (indicate on
E ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET`
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 12/11/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba River
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 60 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 LF
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: 1
10. County: Gaston
12. Subdivision name (if
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.352 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.151
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utility line
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 50's sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 50's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 10 % Agricultural
80 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other L_)
22. Bankfull Width: 8-10' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 46 Comments:
' ?s
Evaluator's Signature Date 12/11/2009
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream M
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

f
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0
2
1
(no floodplain - 0; extensive floodplain = max points) -
a Entrenchment / floodplain<access
0-5 `
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(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
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition- 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 oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

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

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
E? (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock 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)
Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
E- (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*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0;' loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5-
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints)
O 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0 5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/15/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: Little Long Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: - 8 Sq. Mi. 8. Stream Order: 3rd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.312 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.135
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe. Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location ma
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): utili , line
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 30's sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 30's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications 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 point? 0 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: - 8 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 15 % Residential _% Commercial Industrial 15 % Agricultural
40 % Forested % Cleared / Logged 30 % Other (-Urban )
22. Bankfull Width: 20-25' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 6-7'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 60 Comments: Little Long Creek. Sedimentation is evident due to the presence of
mid-channel bar formation.
11 ern
Evaluator's 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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream N
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow /,persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(extensive alteration= 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
„a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
4-4
4
U (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 floodplain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 ' 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive de osition= 0; little' or no sediment = max oints

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
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)
Pa
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
E~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
v
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock 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 4
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
E (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(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
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O' (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 60
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream X (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 6/3/2011 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -84 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 LF 10. County: Gaston
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.366 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.165
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 80's sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 80's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? E NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential
90 % Forested
22. Bankfull Width: 4-6'
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV(I-IV)
on point? YES (91f yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
_% Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged % Other L___)
23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 59 Comments: RPW with perennial flow. Channel is slightly incised. Sedimentation
is evident.
Evaluator's Signature Date 6/3/2010
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream X

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop 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 3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0=4
3
V (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
a
7 Entrenchment I floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

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

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
(deeply incised = 0; stable tied & banks = max points)

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
0'-4
0=5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock 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 2
F (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0=6 0-6 3
(little or no habitat 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(no shading ve etation = 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
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts)
`a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) r59
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
- - - --------------- --------
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # Stream Y (indicate on attached
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET'
1. Applicant's Name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 6/3/2011 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 a.m.
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -190 acres
6. River Basin: Catawba
8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 LF
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
10. County: Gaston
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.369 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -81.172
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Othe Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): See
attached stream location map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):_
15. Recent Weather Conditions: 80'
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 80's sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: -4 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 10 % Agricultural
90 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other L__,
22. Bankfull Width: 6-8' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5-6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions 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 a 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 a 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): 51 Comments: RPW with perennial flow. Incised channel with steep banks
?r1!V`i E
Evaluator's Signature- Date 6/3/2010
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 Army Corps of Engineers in order 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.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream Y
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(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 3
(no buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a+ (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 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive deposition-- 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 0-4 0-5 1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
*4 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(substantial impact =-0'; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
16 (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
E 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
F (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
?q 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
Q (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish 0-4 -
4 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 E 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 0 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) - 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
fal
ONE COMPANY Many Jotutiont-
Stream B -
Stream A - looking downstream J
fal
va?a. ?.vi?arnt?l lrfarly JOf Wfluns-
Stream 0 -

vilc i.vmrnn i iviany jotuuoni -
Stream F -
Im'.
v 1.L Vv,.l[n1.1 I,..a n. JV1,,,,urn-
Stream G -
Stream H -
fill
ONE COMPANY ,tip,,;:, Site Photographs - Nigh Shoals Interconnect Proiect

y.•_ 4 1.? bs{C
{?1 r,9sp" w? tf '"?,??I ? ??A ? •t ?
?.

Vol,

"
°
1
G Pry L /
?• ? ?2 C .
:
Y

t C
•'?.;
'
'?
'
?
/
p
?S.. a
Ty?sr ?f
_?
1
? Y
.
. ?
emuA ? ? .
?

Stream I - looking upstream
4! Ail!
AU
} p N F ?+?) It t ; 1 :•4
? ~:. y,1?
4 ,rI.r a
° lit y ?4 . ,e
??
H ''? i Yt J! ? B ? ? { ' s L
? ?+L srLYy
'Y
a ? ?' 3. ct t?? t t ? t +,yr

• }?
?
y
'lik i- Ar
Y' 5?v
.
y 35>S
_
.
M ?_
.,
- sY^ FV I?S?ts~lya?
y
`
+.•/LJ .,?, ?' _.$' T ?
'?
?' '?
_4'
A5 SN+
4
rca:?
? l
Z
P ?
.
d
}
-
N
??, Y S.. ? -1 wy ? °?. ?. ,?' Kr ?..y ..?? i ga. ? '_ id -iw' i}1;• ''?}ti ??4t ??
"?"w:.
,

I .c[ W ?..4++1Ri'^J .r a a e!< , . •. . 'Ali A
Stream J - looking upstream
Fq
ONE COMPANY' M nr, solilliol,, - Site Photoqraphs - Hiqh Shoals Interconnect Proiect

1 V

it
nz'"L
kj?
44,

61

Stream L - looking upstrea m

`
.
,;

SKI
`
bt _
y ?T. dy

f

;; •l Tf. yy+?

t ; tY*A - -

Stream M - looki upstream
fm
ONE COMPANY 1 A'/anry Solutiow • Site PhotOQraphs - Hiqh Shoals Interconnect Proiect

1 = ?1 l
6
VU4

s ?8

(fit.
61-
y

1

Stream N (Little L Creek) - looki down stream
c
-

L
AI

r ?
?
?- •
? Y? "
.
ti1p ? f
1.n 1. Y-

.. T
.
w
e
'
! ti ! ?
;
Y
t
Stream X - l ooking downstream
fu
ONE COMPANY I iti.r,: Site Photoaraohs - Hiah Shoals Interconnect Proiect

` * ?r

`yli .. •.1?, r.t

J?
?' M

Z, t7-1
--
Aw"

Stream Y - looking upstream

.• F !1

1

1 ? ? K

Wetland A
fl
ONE COMPANY I Afan.v Solution; • Site Photographs - Hiqh Shoals Interconnect Proiect
'1 -??
'fit
VF1
g,?y y 3-.. yes. d
tr 4 • ift S ' ,r$,.' `? i , is .#,. ?" ?r?+y P r'? 1 %•'`?' -.?
?????'t„ , `7 '-?'v! . - lr3 ??'•?S?y?i i, ?5 , ine?c ?:•tw ?i w? r
or pi, `., `s +?Y,:?,?'p'F•?e' _ y.V'?'e"}+?? ?,v ..:;? bt6?'?„', "i.. y?,T?'=?gl
44 *t'
Wetland B
? r
L
z 411;
dui K R r M`4 i" ` (a+? t+t }M,
'ik? tier
+++{{f""" f roy?jF,, i t
otj
.>_ 45?i+lt i'e!, Y '+TieJ:°4
Wedand C
FDR
vi.L ?.vi.irni.a iinav us-,,, site

or,
b+
t4T OF Tti
Q? yR?
? a
9
?gpCH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 7illicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 19, 2010
Mr. Eric Mularski, Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
440 S. Church St., Ste. 1000
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-1919
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Subject: High Shoals/Gaston County Landfill/Long Creek Sewer Interconnect, Gaston County,
North Carolina
We received your letter of February 1, 2010, request our comments on 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).
General Comments
We are very concerned about the impacts this project will have on the South Fork Catawba River
(South Fork) and its tributaries. According to the map provided with your letter, much of the
proposed gravity sewer line will parallel the river, resulting in a substantial loss of riparian
habitat, and appears to involve at least eleven stream crossings - three across the South Fork.
Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, and utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.),
and other infrastructures that require maintained cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the
functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas. It is
important to remember that one of the main purposes of sewer systems is to protect water
quality. If the impacts of installing a gravity sewer system adjacent to streams (gravity sewer
collection systems are generally restricted to natural drainage pathways) are greater than an
alternative collection system or the use of septic systems, then the gravity system should not be
used. We acknowledge that local topography can make the avoidance of riparian buffers
difficult when installing gravity sewer lines and that, in some instances, the impacts are
unavoidable for practical reasons (cost and depth of sewer lines). However, the environmental
assessment for this project should demonstrate that the sewer line will be designed to be as far
away from any waterways as possible and that only in instances where the topography or
existing structures prevent maintaining the riparian buffers should encroachment be necessary.
Our office regularly reviews projects that involve the repair and relocation of sewer lines that
have been installed parallel to waterways and now are exposed and failing. Many of these
repairs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The primary reasons for these failures are as
follows: (1) the sewer lines were installed too close to the stream; (2) the wooded riparian
buffers, which stabilized the stream bank, were lost; and (3) high-water flows increased because
of increased runoff from development. Again, we strongly recommend that the proposed sewer
lines be relocated as far as possible from streams; it may prove less expensive in the long term.
When preparing the Environmental Assessment for this project, we strongly encourage you to
consider other sewer collection options that do not require topography as a major factor in the
routing of pipelines. We encourage you to consider the use of Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) systems and/or Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) systems - both can be less expensive to
operate and can have significantly lower "front-end" costs. 1 ° 2
Riparian Buffers and Floodplains
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 quality.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, maintains stream flows
during dry periods;
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
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.
I http://www.eone.comlsewei? pressure_system.htm#advantages
2http://www. epa.govlowmitnetlmtblpresewer.pdf
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.
2
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 wetlands5 throughout the present and future service areas of
the entire municipal jurisdiction .6 We additionally encourage the implementation of buffers on
ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as headwater streams.7 8 Buffers
should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream bank,9 which may result in wider
buffers at higher gradients, and must be provided over the entire length of the stream, including
headwater streams.
To maximize the buffers, we recommend that the subject lines and any future connecting sewer
lines be installed as far "upslope" (outside the buffers) as possible. Additionally, to ensure that
the stream buffers are maintained, development within the buffers should be discouraged by not
allowing development within 100 feet of area streams and creeks to connect to the subject sewer
lines (this does not preclude existing residences or businesses from connecting). This will
prevent further alteration of riparian buffers and the in-fill of area floodplains (all of the
proposed sewer line route is mapped within the 100-year floodplain in North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program's website - http://www.ncfloodmaps.com), which would increase the potential
for the flooding of adjacent properties and interfere with the natural hydrological process of area
waterways. In addition, it would prevent the disruption of migration corridors for wildlife.
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies (or their designated nonfederal representative)
to consider and protect floodplain functions. We believe the recent examples of flooding
throughout North Carolina highlight the importance of avoiding the long- and short-term impacts
associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and that we should avoid the
direct and indirect support of floodplain development.
Stream Crossings
The information provided with your letter does not detail how stream crossing will be
accomplished (other than a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be necessary).
We prefer stream crossings be accomplished by directional boring rather than open-cut
trenching. From experiences with similar projects, we have observed that open-cut trenching
increases the likelihood of future lateral movement of the stream (which could undercut or erode
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.
8B. 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.
3
around the sewer line), and the correction of these problems could result in additional future
maintenance and impacts to the stream. The best option for sewer line design is to avoid or
minimize the number of crossings needed. If a crossing is unavoidable, we generally prefer the
use of directional boring or clear-spanning structures designed, at a minimum, to accommodate
the active channel width (no piers below ordinary high water). Rivers and streams are dynamic
systems that migrate to seek stability while adjusting to changes in the watershed. Properly sized
spanning structures will provide for the passage of aquatic species and will accommodate the
movement of debris and bed material. Furthermore, spanning structures usually (1) can be
constructed with minimal in-stream impacts, (2) do not require stream channel realignment, and
(3) retain the natural streambed conditions; and the horizontal and vertical clearances may be
designed to allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structures.
Directional boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and
riparian buffers. If this method cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the only viable
method, the crossing should be made perpendicular to the stream flow, and we recommend the
development of a stream-bank-monitoring and -maintenance program that would allow for the
prompt stabilization of stream banks near the utility crossing (should any stream-bank erosion or
destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
During construction, equipment should be kept out of streams by operating from the banks in a
fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected daily
and should be maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic
materials should be stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location
where the material can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids,
cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream. In addition,
all fueling operations should be accomplished at least 200 feet away from stream and wetlands or
outside the 100-year floodplain (whichever is greater).
Sewer lines associated with crossing areas should be maintained and operated at all times to
prevent discharges to land or surface waters. In circumstances where minimum setbacks cannot
be attained, sewer lines should be constructed of ductile iron or a substance of equal durability.
Invasive Exotic Species
We are concerned with the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species in association with
the proposed project. Without active management, including the revegetation of disturbed areas
with native species, project corridors will likely only be sources of (and corridors for) the
movement of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic species are a major contributor to species
depletion and extinction, second only to habitat loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the
endangered or threatened status of more than 40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 10 It is estimated that at least 4,000
exotic plant species and 2,300 exotic animal species are now established in the United States,
10D. S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species
in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
4
costing more than $130 billion a year to control." Additionally, the U.S. Government has many
programs and laws in place to combat invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov) and thus
cannot spend money to counter these efforts. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order
13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or
carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of
invasive species in the United States or elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion-control
benefits, many exotic species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are
established, thereby preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic
plants 12 are also aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of
displacing already-established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that only
native plant species be used in association with all aspects of this project, including secondary
impacts (i.e., connecting sewer lines).
Additionally, efforts should be made to avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of
construction corridors. Disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial
to wildlife. Invasive exotic species should be avoided (see above). Native annual small grains
appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Where feasible, use woody debris
and logs from corridor clearing to establish brush piles and downed logs at the edges (just in the
woods) of the cleared rights-of-way to improve habitat for wildlife. Allowing the corridor area
to develop into a brush/scrub habitat would maximize benefits to wildlife. Corridor maintenance
should be minimized, and mowing should be prohibited between April 1 and October 1 in order
to reduce impacts to nesting wildlife. We suggest a rotational maintenance schedule that
incorporates a portion of the area (e.g., one-third) each year instead of the entire project every
2 or 3 years. Additionally, herbicides should not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
At this stage of project development and without more specifics about construction techniques or
alternatives considered, it is difficult for us to accurately assess potential environmental impacts
(direct, indirect, or cumulative). Additional potential impacts that should be addressed include
any additional development(s) that will use the sewer service. We recommend that any
environmental document prepared for this project include the following (if applicable):
1. A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (including a
no-build alternative and alternate routing).
2. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that
may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
3. The acreage and a description of the wetlands that will be filled because of the
proposed project. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be
mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
11D. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
12 Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://www.tneppc.org/and http://www.invasive.orgleasternlsrs/on
the Internet.
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine the need for a
Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Avoiding and minimizing wetland
impacts is a part of the Corps' permitting process, and we will consider other
potential alternatives in the review of any permits.
4. The extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project. A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
biotic resources.
5. The acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because
of the proposed project.
6. A description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental
impacts associated with this proposed work.
7. A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts.
8. Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riverine, and upland) associated
with any phase of the proposed project.
We also offer the following additional recommendations to help address secondary and
cumulative impacts associated with the future aspects of this project and to help minimize
impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including
wetlands, should be implemented during construction. Where impacts to
wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend mitigation for the losses. In
addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform the important
functions of flood control and water quality protection. Disturbed wetland
areas should be returned to their original soils and contours. Plant
communities should be reestablished that would result in wetland plant
community succession into habitat of equal or greater value than the habitat
that was destroyed. Temporarily disturbed wetlands should be reseeded with
annual small grains appropriate for the season (e.g., oat, millet, rye, wheat, or
ryegrass) and be allowed to revert to natural wetland vegetation. The crossing
of wetlands and streams should be minimized, located at narrow areas, and
made perpendicular to the stream.
2. In addition to the protection of riparian buffers, we suggest Gaston County
and all of the involved municipalities strongly discourage the in-fill of
3. The construction of roadways in new neighborhoods can produce short-term
direct impacts as well as long-term cumulative effects. Studies have shown a
serious decline in the health of receiving waters when as little as 10 percent of
a watershed is converted to impervious surface area. We suggest that both
Counties and all of the involved municipalities limit impervious surface area
to no more than 7 percent, limit curb and gutter in new developments, and
prevent direct discharges of storm water into streams. We recommend the use
of on-site storm-water management (i.e., bioretention areas) and grassed
swales in place of curb and gutter that will result in no net change in the
hydrology of the watershed. These designs often cost less to install and
significantly reduce environmental impacts from residential development.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Your letter indicates there is a potential population of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) within the project corridor. Based on the photograph provided
with your letter, we agree a flowering season survey is appropriate. We recommend using a
qualified botanist to conduct the survey because the species is difficult to distinguish from other
Hexastylis species, even with the flower available. We do not typically conduct surveys for
consultations. In accordance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR
Part 402.01, before any federal authorization/permits or funding can be issued for this project, it
is the responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory/permitting and/or funding 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, you must initiate section 7 consultation with this
office.
We remind you that when assessing the potential impacts of this project, secondary (i.e., future
connecting sewer lines, housing developments, commercial development) and cumulative
impacts must be taken into account. Any future development that will occur or that will be at a
higher density because of the availability of the subject sewer service is considered an
interrelated/interdependent activity under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. An
interrelated activity is an activity that is a part of the proposed action and depends on the
proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no
independent utility apart from the action under consultation. A determination of whether other
activities are interrelated to, or interdependent with, the proposed action under consultation is
made by applying a "but for" test. That is, it must be determined that the other activity under
7
question would not occur "but for" the proposed action under consultation. 13 In the context of
the subject sewer line, the construction of new sewer lines (that will connect to the proposed
facility) is an action that would not otherwise occur without the subject project. Thus, the
construction of these lines is an interdependent activity, and the impacts of these new lines must
be analyzed with the effects of the subject sewer line. In turn, the availability of sewer service is
a prerequisite for some development projects. Consequently, because these projects depend on
the construction of sewer lines, which must be connected to the subject sewer line, these
developments are interrelated to the original proposed action and must be analyzed in
conjunction with the action. Therefore, before we can conclude section 7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act, you must either provide us with information showing that the subject
sewer line is not interrelated to, or interdependent with, future development, or you must provide
us with information regarding the impacts of the sewer line and any secondary impacts (i.e.,
housing developments, commercial development) associated with its construction. For example,
the paths of any connecting sewer lines, commercial development, and impacts to any sites that
are currently known to harbor federally listed species can and should be addressed. Similarly,
future developments that plan to connect to the subject sewer line should be surveyed for
federally listed species before any ground-disturbing activities occur (before being allowed to
connect to the subject sewer line).
Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you have any
questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-10-077 to this project;
please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Ms. Shari L. Bryant, Eastern Piedmont Region Permit Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, P.O. Box 129, Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation
Handbook - Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Washington, D.C.
8
ENT of ry?ym
? - A
7 ? S
9
?'9RCN
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 28, 2010
Mr. Eric Mularski, Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
440 S. Church St., Ste. 1000
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-1919
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Subject: Endangered Species Survey for the Proposed High Shoals/Gaston County
Landfill/Long Creek Sewer Interconnect, Gaston County, North Carolina
We received your letter of April 5, 2010, providing the results of the subject survey. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the information provided in and with your letter, we agree that the subject project will
not affect any federally listed species. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of
the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you have any
questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-10-077 to this project;
please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Ms. Shari L. Bryant, Eastern Piedmont Region Permit Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, P.O. Box 129, Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 9, 2009
Eric Mularski
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
400 South Church Street
Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-1919
Re: High Shoals Interconnect Project, Gaston County, ER 09-2763
Dear Mr. Mularski:
Thank you for your letter of November 11, 2009, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area,
it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
We have searched our files and found two National Register properties in the general vicinity of your project,
the Hoyle House, GS 22, and the Eli Hoyle House, GS 110. The project as proposed will not affect either of
these National Register properties. However, if the scope of your project changes, please notify our office for
further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisorv Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter. Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Joncs Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Senice Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599