20140643 Ver 1_More Info Received_20140702

cwwsc
�p Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550-East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms Beverly Strickland
NCDWR
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
2c)ly oby3
Date 07 -02 -14
CWS Project # 2013 -3208
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ® Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ❑ Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
1 7/2/14 1 CD with Map and Plans for Mt Holly Greenway
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Ms. Strickland, As requested by Shelton Sullivan, please find attached a CD containing_ plans and
maps for the Mt. Holly Greenway project.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
$0
mas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Mount Holly Greenway Trail
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: City of Mount Holly, POC: Mr. Danny Jackson
3. Name of Consultant /Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. Mr. Thomas Blackwell, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: west of the Catawba River, south of Charlotte Avenue and east of South Main Street in Mount
Holly, North Carolina
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Mount Holly
8. County: Gaston
9. Lat: N35.2885270 Long: W81.0103250 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Mount Holly, NC, dated 1993
11. Waterway: UT to Catawba River
12. Watershed: Santee (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 42
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:
Begin Date

111.1
I CWS
6� 1
June 10, 2014
Mr. David Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 - 527 -1177 (office)
704 - 527 -1133 (fax)
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR — Wetlands and Storm Water Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 42
Mount Holly Greenway Trail
Mount Holly, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2013 -3208
Dear Mr. Brown,
The Mount Holly Greenway Trail is 4.5 acres in extent and is located adjacent to the west bank of the
Catawba River, south of Charlotte Avenue and east of South Main Street in Mount Holly, North Carolina
(Figure 1, attached). On behalf of the City of Mount Holly, US Infrastructure of Carolina, Inc. (USI) has
sub - contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for
this project. An executed agent authorization form is attached.
Applicant Name: City of Mount Holly; POC: Danny J. Jackson
Mailing Address: PO Box 406, Mount Holly, NC 28120
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 - 827 -3931
Street Address of Project: adjacent to the west bank of the Catawba River, south of Charlotte
Avenue and east of South Main Street in Mount Holly, North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Catawba
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Mount Holly, NC
County: Gaston
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.288527 °, W81.010325'
USGS Quadrangle Name: Mount Holly, NC, dated 1993
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is mixture of wooded areas, a power line right -of -way, existing
unpaved trails, and gravel roads. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer
negundo), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
According to the Soil Survey of Gaston County' (Figures 2 and 3. NRCS Soil Survey Maps, attached),
on -site soils consist of Chewacla loam, 0 -2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA), Cecil -Urban land
complex, 2 -8 percent slopes (CfB), Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 -8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
(LdB2), and Udorthents, loamy (Ud). Cecil -Urban land complex soils, Lloyd sandy clay loam soils, and
Udorthent soils are all well drained. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained. Chewacla loam soils
are listed on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Gaston County2 and on the National Hydric Soils
List3 as having hydric inclusions (Hydric Criteria 2133).
Jurisdictional Delineation
On October 9, 2013, CWS's Thomas Blackwell, PWS and Kelly Thames, WPIT, delineated jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. within the project area (Figure 4, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated using
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is
defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual4, the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional
Determination Form Instructional Guidebooks, with further technical guidance from the Eastern
Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement6, dated April 2012. Wetland Determination Data Forms
representative of on -site wetland areas are attached (DP1 and DP3). A Wetland Determination Data Form
representative of the on -site non jurisdictional upland areas is also attached (DP2). The locations of these
data points are identified as DPI, DP2, and DP3 on Figure 5 (attached). Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
were mapped with a sub -meter capable Trimble GeoXT GPS Unit.
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources ( NCDWR) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D- shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on -site stream channel. A NCDWR Stream Classification Form and USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet representative of Stream A are attached (SCP1). The location of
this stream classification point is identified as SCP1 Figure 5 (attached).
Results
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
stream channel (Stream A), two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB), and an open water
area (Open Water Inlet) located within the project limits (Figures 4 and 5, attached). Stream A is an
unnamed tributary (UT) to the Catawba River. The Catawba River is within the Catawba River basin
(HU# 03050103)' and is rated "Class C" waters by the NCDWQ. On -Site jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. were mapped using a sub -meter capable GPS unit and total approximately 0.056 acres (2,439 square
feet). Linear footage and acreage of on -site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1.
' United States Department of Agriculture, June 2009. Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina.
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
3 United States Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. 2012 National Hydric Soils List by State.
4 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
5 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. 2007. USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD. USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC,
6 US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
7 "HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
2

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
Table 1. Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Relatively Permanent Waters with Perennial Flow
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are capable
of supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes the on -site Perennial
RPW stream and the field observations supporting this determination.
Stream A originates off site, flows northeast across the project corridor for approximately 49 linear feet
and continues to an off -site confluence with the Catawba River (Figure 5, attached). Stream A was
evaluated to be perennial and exhibited strong bed and bank, strong flow, strong sinuosity, substrate
consisting of sand, gravel, and cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of three to five feet.
Due to evidence of year round flow, Stream A was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with
perennial flow (RPW) according to USACE /EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 54 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 40 out of a
possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1,
attached). Photograph F (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
8 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non- RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year -round flow, and seasonal streams that
have continuous flow at least seasonally. Tow classification of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and connection to TNWs.
These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplains or in close
proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a TNW.
Jurisdiction
NCDWR
USACE
Approx
Jurisdictional
SCP /DP
Stream
Stream
Length
Approx
USACE /EPA
Feature
Rapanos
Intermittent
No.
Classification
Assessment
Linear
acreage
on
Classification
/Perennial
Score
Score
Feet (li)
(ac)
Stream A
RPW
Perennial
SCP1
40
54
49
0.003
1 Stream Total
491f
0.005 ac
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting RPW
DPI
-
-
-
0.017
Wetland BB
Directly Abutting RPW
DP3
-
-
-
0.0037
Wetland Total
-
0.0207 ac
Open Water
Directly Abutting RPW -
-
-
-
0.03
Inlet
Open Water Total
-
0.03 ac
Jurisdictional Waters Total
491f
0.056 ac
Relatively Permanent Waters with Perennial Flow
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are capable
of supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes the on -site Perennial
RPW stream and the field observations supporting this determination.
Stream A originates off site, flows northeast across the project corridor for approximately 49 linear feet
and continues to an off -site confluence with the Catawba River (Figure 5, attached). Stream A was
evaluated to be perennial and exhibited strong bed and bank, strong flow, strong sinuosity, substrate
consisting of sand, gravel, and cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of three to five feet.
Due to evidence of year round flow, Stream A was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with
perennial flow (RPW) according to USACE /EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 54 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 40 out of a
possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1,
attached). Photograph F (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
8 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non- RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year -round flow, and seasonal streams that
have continuous flow at least seasonally. Tow classification of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and connection to TNWs.
These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplains or in close
proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a TNW.

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
saturated soil conditions. "9 The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands. These
parameters are as follows: 1) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology, and 3) Hydric Soils.
Except in certain atypical situations, all three parameters must be present in order for an area to be
determined to be a jurisdictional wetland. This section describes each on -site jurisdictional wetland and
some of the field observations that let to their determinations.
Wetland AA is a palustrine forested wetland (PFOIH), is approximately 0.0 17 acre in extent on site, and
is directly abutting the Catawba River off site (Figures 4 and 5, attached). Wetland AA exhibits low
chroma soils (IOYR 3/1) with common, distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6), surface water up to two feet,
saturated soils, wetland drainage patterns, drift deposits, and oxidized rhizospheres. Dominant vegetation
in this wetland includes box elder, river birch, lizard's tail, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), and river
cane. A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA is attached as DP 1.
Photographs B, C, and D (attached) are representative of Wetland AA.
Wetland BB is a palustrine herbaceous wetland (PEM1E) and the on -site portion of Wetland BB is
approximately 0.0037 acre in extent. Wetland BB is directly abutting Perennial RPW Stream A (Figures
4 and 5, attached) and exhibits low chroma soils (7.5YR 4/1) with common, distinct mottles (7.5YR 3/4),
saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, and crayfish burrows. Dominant vegetation in this wetland includes
soft rush (Juncus effusus), multiple carex species ( Carex spp.), rusty flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus),
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), tickseed (Bidens aristosa), and rattlebox (Ludwigia alternifolia). A
Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland BB is attached as DP3. Photograph E
(attached) is representative of Wetland BB.
Open Water Inlet
There is an open water area that is approximately 0.03 acre in extent within the project limits. This area is
an open water inlet from the Catawba River (Figures 4 and 5, attached). Photograph A (attached) is
representative of this jurisdictional feature of the U.S.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 21, 2014 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. In a response dated May 15, 2014, SHPO stated, "We have conducted a review of
the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as proposed." CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service10 and
found no sites of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance within the project corridor. A copy
of the correspondence is attached.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on April 21, 2014 to
determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat
located within the project area. In a response dated May 12, 2014, NCNHP stated that Element
Occurrence data show a current record for Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), federally
listed as Endangered, as occurring in Tuckaseegee Park, adjacent to the southern end of the proposed
9 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
10 http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb /, accessed April 21, 2014
4

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
project. However, habitat for this species does not occur within the project limits, and no individuals of
this species were observed during the field visit on October 9, 2013. This project will have no effect on
this species. A copy of the correspondence is attached.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Carolina Thread Trail is a regional network of greenways and trails that will reach 15 counties and
2.3 million citizens in both North and South Carolina. Greenways are vegetated natural buffers that
improve water quality, reduce the impacts of flooding, and provide wildlife habitat. Its aim is to link
people, places, cities, towns, and attractions. The trail will preserve the natural areas of the Carolinas and
will be a place for exploration of nature, culture, science and history, and general recreation.
The purpose of this project is to construct a new portion of the Mount Holly Greenway Trail and to tie it
to the existing Trail along the Catawba River. The proposed Trail will tie into the existing Mount Holly
Greenway and will eventually be part of the larger Carolina Thread Trail system. The proposed project
will serve both passive and active recreational opportunities for greenway users, while maintaining and
preserving the natural aspects of the site.
The proposed project will involve the construction of approximately 7,000 linear feet of 10 -foot wide
greenway trail (Figure 6, attached).
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All work will be constructed in the dry.
This project is part of a linear greenway project along the Catawba River. Route alignment was designed
to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland and streams based on CWS's wetland delineation and mapping
work. Impacts have been reduced to 38 linear feet of stream channel, 0.0207 acre of wetlands, and 63
linear feet of bank stabilization. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters. Additionally, there will be no net above grade fills within the 100 -year
floodplain.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The proposed project will involve the construction of approximately 7,000 linear feet of 10 -foot wide
greenway trail, and will necessitate the placement of a pipe, fill, and bank stabilization in jurisdictional
waters of the U.S.
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 42, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated
with the Mount Holly Greenway Trail project include approximately 38 linear feet of jurisdictional stream
channel (Perennial RPW Stream A) and 0.0207 acre of wetland (Wetlands AA and BB). Figure 6 (attached)
shows the proposed greenway trail overview. Table 2 summarizes the unavoidable impacts to on -site
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Impacts to Perennial Stream A (38 linear feet) are the result of the construction of a trail crossing, with safety
rails on both sides for pedestrian safety. The crossing will be accomplished using a 48 -inch reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) with a headwall at the upstream end and a rip rap apron at the downstream end. The rip
rap apron is necessary to dissipate flows exiting the pipe. The proposed RCP will be placed at the channel
bed to maintain aquatic life passage. A plan view and profile view of the proposed pipe are included as
Figures 7 and 8 (attached), respectively.

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
Impacts to Wetland AA (0.017 acre) are the result of the placement of fill for the construction of an
asphalt recreational trail. Impacts are the result of the placement of fill within the wetland. Proposed
impacts to Wetland AA are shown on Figures 9 to 11 (attached).
Impacts to Wetland BB (0.0037 acre) are the result of the placement of fill for the construction of an
asphalt recreational trail. Impacts are the result of the placement of fill within the wetland. Proposed
impacts to Wetland BB are shown on Figure 7 (attached).
Bank stabilization is proposed in areas of erosion on the banks located at the open water inlet within the
project limits (Figure 12, attached). A bridge will span the inlet for the greenway crossing at this location,
and will not impact any jurisdictional waters of the U.S. However, due to the erosion on the banks at this
location, rip rap is proposed to be placed on the banks for stabilization.
The bank stabilization will consist of 63 linear feet of rip rap slope protection and will not exceed an average
of one cubic yard per running foot below the plane of the ordinary high water mark. There will be no work
done in the bed of the inlet and the hydraulic connection between the Catawba River and the inland cove will
not be impeded.
Table 2. Proposed impacts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Feature
Type of Impact
Impacts (If)
Impact (ac)
Figure No.
Perennial Stream A
Pipe
26
0.0015
7&8
Rip Rap
12
0.0006
7&8
Stream Total
381f
0.0021 ac
Wetland AA
Fill
--
0.017
9, 10, & 11
Wetland BB
Fill
--
0.0037
7
Wetland Total
--
0.0207 ac
Open Water Inlet
Bank Stabilization
63 bank feet
--
12
Open Water Total
63 bank feet
--
1W
On behalf of the City of Mount Holly, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application
with attachments in accordance with the general conditions of and pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 42,
(attached).
Catawba River Buffer Rule
Under the Catawba River Buffer Rule (Rule 15a ncac 02b .0243) in Mount Holly, NC, greenway
pedestrian trails consisting of pervious and impervious surfaces and related structures are allowable with
written authorization from NCDWR. Figure 13 (attached) illustrates the portion of this project that is
subject to the Catawba River Buffer Rule. Zone 1 includes all impacts within 30 feet landward from the
top of bank of the Catawba River and Zone 2 includes all impacts from the 30 -foot buffer (Zone 1)
landward for an additional 20 feet. Within both zones, permanent impacts were calculated from the
proposed 10 -foot wide pedestrian and temporary impacts were calculated from the 20 -foot wide greenway
easement. Zone 1 includes approximately 23,000 square feet of permanent impacts (10 -foot wide
pedestrian trail) and 43,211 square feet of temporary impacts (20 -foot wide greenway easement minus the
10 -foot wide pedestrian trail square footage). Zone 2 includes approximately 580 square feet of
0

Mount Holly Greenway Trail June 10, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 CWS Proiect No. 2013 -3208
permanent impacts (10 -foot wide pedestrian trail) and 5,235 square feet of temporary impacts (20 -foot
wide greenway easement minus the 10 -foot wide pedestrian trail square footage). No buffer mitigation is
required for these impacts.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 704 -527 -1177, or through email at tom @cws- inc.net should you
have any questions or comments regarding this permit submittal.
Sincerely,
`
jo l"
Thomas J. Blackwell, PWS Kell hames, WPIT
Senior Scientist Staff Scientist II
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. Current USDA -NRCS Soils Map
Figure 3. Historic USDA -NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Map - Overview
Figure 5. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Map
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts - Overview
Figures. 7 -12. Proposed Impacts
Figure 13. Catawba River Buffer Impacts
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 42
NCDWR Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
USACE Water Quality Assessment Form (SCP1)
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DPI — DP3)
Agency Correspondence
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
Representative Photographs
cc: Mr. Bob Cooke, US Infrastructure of Carolina, Inc.
File
7

c\,
cc
M
m
U
r -
.�
CIO � z
Lu
U
C..) LU It z
L5 T
Q) U)
Charlotte Avenue e
C• 4 p
Qe UJ - LL
cc
© C" South Main Street
L)
c' p� C\J
. �f •• -.i
Ct
y- DO J,
,
co
C\J a a .;_. *� .� w ox
Z C) x �
J 0 •
Soil - Description rr G'a 610
CfB - Cecil -Urban land slopes complex, 2 -8%
P p N cv
CH - Chewacla loam, frequently flooded `�� C� m � T Legend
GaB2 - Gaston sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slopes, eroded CD :z Q
Ud - Ud Project Limits orthents, loamy 1� U (5 LU /
C-1 CD
(2 f FIGURE NO.
' 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: HISTORIC NRCS -USGS SOIL SURVEY OF GASTON COUNTY, SHEET 4, DATED 1985 j
LJ 31
1 / ( N o4
MWAWA
co
m
(_• ,
Y
O
00
CD
M
�i
r � �, � � d r, �`"1 +EI �'f,�i ll r �u -�.J7 � .-. - •'
p
: �
M
0
� N
;;
r -
.�
CIO � z
Lu
U
C..) LU It z
L5 T
Q) U)
Charlotte Avenue e
C• 4 p
Qe UJ - LL
cc
© C" South Main Street
L)
c' p� C\J
. �f •• -.i
Ct
y- DO J,
,
co
C\J a a .;_. *� .� w ox
Z C) x �
J 0 •
Soil - Description rr G'a 610
CfB - Cecil -Urban land slopes complex, 2 -8%
P p N cv
CH - Chewacla loam, frequently flooded `�� C� m � T Legend
GaB2 - Gaston sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slopes, eroded CD :z Q
Ud - Ud Project Limits orthents, loamy 1� U (5 LU /
C-1 CD
(2 f FIGURE NO.
' 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: HISTORIC NRCS -USGS SOIL SURVEY OF GASTON COUNTY, SHEET 4, DATED 1985 j
LJ 31
1 / ( N o4

k
575
570
565
F-)
rn
QO
m
+
o
Q
W V'
U
W o
w I
d 31d
O F
-G-
PI Sta = 31 +02.78
O =
0150 27' 18.01"
L =
16.18'
T =
8.14'
R =
60.00
0
k_
0
rN
DETAIL A
STANDARD 'V' DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Pro osed r Natural
Greenway ?,� ,L1 Ground
D
Min. D= 1 Ft.
—"� FROM -G- STA. 29 +85 RT. TO -G- STA. 31+15 RT.
—SS�ss - - - -1j 3
S a s —ss — _ F _ .41d
-Ala
° ° SS - -S
_
° — F
+O N 31d 31d
M La
s �1d
-G- PT Sta. 31 +10.82 /
till C ld STANDARD "V" tT H
N55° 54' 20. " °
W SEE DE ° A l
ss C�EARA CE / \
BUFFER F RM --
SSSs�s----.s5
V EXISTING ELECTRIC ss —Ss
�c GUY WIRES (TYP.) I Hp —HO —�o —HC
25' CLEARANCE 0 l
BUFFER FROM /
EXISTING ELECTRIC
STRUCTURES (TYP.) \ 2 /
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION \ L
0
PID# 123986 2 PROPOSED 10' -
D.B. 83 PG. 555 ASPHALT GREENWAY
I
3U+ (5.
31 +00
PI = 31 +66.84
EL = 579.58'
VC = 60.00'
K = 48
G- STA. 31 +15.00
32 +00
I
0
I
O_
II p
o_ _
II p
O =
- z
�►-(-v I I
� I I
o z
� I I
Q) O o
_ 2
I
o
c
= ss I
�0
X04 "0 /.
"w
-ij
O
z
0
I
2
I
0
I=
1
O
I
STANDARD "V" DITCH
0 .
CO
N
I(IV
pn)
+
=
0
M
Q�
_/
O
4_
N
c
G� O
S
SSA
I
�
� 3.1
DETAIL B
STANDARD 'V' DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Natural Proposed
_L
Ground 2I ,L1 Greenway
D
Min. D= 1 Ft.
100 YEAR FLOOD LINE (SEE FIRM MAP
#3710450600K PRELIMINARY DATE: OCT
AMERICAN & EFIRD INC. 109 2007 FOR 100 YEAR FLOOD
PID# 124522 DESCRIPTION, PER N.C. FEMA. - TYP.)
D.B. 1056 PG. 273
ET. AL. -G- PI Sta = 34 +97.02
A = 0380 12' 09.93"
L = 40.01'
T = 20.78'
R = 60.00
FROM -G- STA. 35 +40 LT. TO -G- STA. 35 +90 LT.
-G- PI Sta = 33 +86.08 -G- PI Sta = 34 +32.44
-G- PI Sta = 33 +04.63 O = 0320 27' 37.59" o - 0340 31' 30.63"
4 = 016° 57' 50.87" L = 33.99' -13 = 36.15'
L = 29.61' T = 17.47' T = 18.64' -G- PI Sta 35+41.0
2- -
T = 14.91' � R = 60. _ 037 35 11.52
R = 100.00 w R = 60.00 L = 39.36'
+ T = 20 42'
0
0
N
w
+
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
EB -5114
R/W SHEET NO
in
M A� R = 60.00
0
V) ^�
C
I
CD
ss�t1511
—S —ss
�SS-
31d 31d 31d
_— F 41d C N52° 02' W -G -
°— 0 31d — 31d 31d �-31d
/ Ip = WETLANDS (TYP.)''d
0 - PC Sta 34 +13 80�
c�
O
1Q) A,
(r
ss+ +
I
� I
y �eof �
END PRO D / M
SAF RAIL
( -G- STA." +00.00) �La� — — — — —
a EW
—�ss
S —mss i IM �
HO�HO— F��HO —T p \ —SS �se,� =ss� '!°'
_ 6 HO —HC�j — ss
I I 2 HO —HO —Hp �}p —HO \ I ,% � s -- r__ss_
HO —Hp - -H —W,O� —HOB —�j-,� F#6
° 0 I BEGIN PROPOSED *\
O I I l874f \ / SAFETY RAIL
��
(- G - STA. 34+25.00)
\ O O / \6 M
—
0 PROPOSED GREENWAY EASEMENT (TYP.)
PLAN
DITCH LEGEND
LEFT DITCH ---- - - - - --
RIGHT DITCH - - - - - - -
PROFILE
33 +00
34 +00
C
- 31d i C la 31d 31d
S870 41' .7"
ss
�- —ss l�
d ss _
O HO —Hp —HO Hp H --�_HO - HO —H� HO s HO
-G- PC Sta. .25
N540 06' 08.4 "W \ PROPOSED 120" HIGH
VINYL COAT 'D CHAIN
\ LINK FENCE
CLASS "I" RIP RAP EST 26 TOM /
SHEET NO.
10
N/A
GREENWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
alta
www.altaplanning.com
108 S. Main Street, Suite B (Physical)
P.O.
311 2453 (Mailing)
Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
GEOTEXTILE EST. 50 S.Y. _ _ INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO \'\0111 C "S E; :[ D [< R // W ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PI = 34 +61.95
EL = 577.73"
VC = 60.00'
K = 51
-G- STA. 35 +40.0
35 +00
PI = 35 +33.75
EL = 578.11'
VC = 60.00'
K = 19
- STA. 35 +50.0
EL. 577.6
- STA. 35 +63.
'V' DITC
G- STA. 35 +89.9
mGm
36 +00
:1
575
ter',
565
�S
STANDARD "V" DITCH
`"
G'
SEE DETAIL B
w
c
G� O
POSED 10'
w
xo �s
ASPHALT `� REENWAY
31d
31d 31d
C
O
ss___ss x,a
C
_
- - --
O
X/
SS —
�,a�
\
-dZnF_ IIW
Q
o
END PRO D / M
SAF RAIL
( -G- STA." +00.00) �La� — — — — —
a EW
—�ss
S —mss i IM �
HO�HO— F��HO —T p \ —SS �se,� =ss� '!°'
_ 6 HO —HC�j — ss
I I 2 HO —HO —Hp �}p —HO \ I ,% � s -- r__ss_
HO —Hp - -H —W,O� —HOB —�j-,� F#6
° 0 I BEGIN PROPOSED *\
O I I l874f \ / SAFETY RAIL
��
(- G - STA. 34+25.00)
\ O O / \6 M
—
0 PROPOSED GREENWAY EASEMENT (TYP.)
PLAN
DITCH LEGEND
LEFT DITCH ---- - - - - --
RIGHT DITCH - - - - - - -
PROFILE
33 +00
34 +00
C
- 31d i C la 31d 31d
S870 41' .7"
ss
�- —ss l�
d ss _
O HO —Hp —HO Hp H --�_HO - HO —H� HO s HO
-G- PC Sta. .25
N540 06' 08.4 "W \ PROPOSED 120" HIGH
VINYL COAT 'D CHAIN
\ LINK FENCE
CLASS "I" RIP RAP EST 26 TOM /
SHEET NO.
10
N/A
GREENWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
alta
www.altaplanning.com
108 S. Main Street, Suite B (Physical)
P.O.
311 2453 (Mailing)
Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
GEOTEXTILE EST. 50 S.Y. _ _ INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO \'\0111 C "S E; :[ D [< R // W ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PI = 34 +61.95
EL = 577.73"
VC = 60.00'
K = 51
-G- STA. 35 +40.0
35 +00
PI = 35 +33.75
EL = 578.11'
VC = 60.00'
K = 19
- STA. 35 +50.0
EL. 577.6
- STA. 35 +63.
'V' DITC
G- STA. 35 +89.9
mGm
36 +00
:1
575
ter',
565

ASPHALT GREENWAY
CONCRETE ENDWALL
INV. = 572.85
580
575
570
565
25' -48" RCP -IV
-INV. = 572.60
101IIIIIIINAGISIMG ' INU
:1
575
570
565
0 +00 0 +50
PROM E
PROPOSED PIPE CROSSING AT STATION 34 +65.50
10 5 0 10 20
SCALE: 1" = 20' (HORIZONTAL)
2i 5 1.25 0 2.5 5
iIiII -
SCALE: 1" = 5' (VERTICAL)

.�
575
570
565
-G- PI Sta = 25 +81.02 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE (SEE FIRM MAP
0 = 007° 40' 20.0711 #3710450600K PRELIMINARY DATE: OCT
In nnn-7 rnn Inn yr A n rl nnn
ti oo
ASPHALT GREENWAY
-G- PT Sta. 25 +85.0
TRANSITION ASPHALT J
GREENWAY FROM 10' TO 8'
Cq
PROPOSED 8' ASPHALT
GREENWAY
TRANSITION ASPHALT
GREENWAY FROM 8' TO 10'
EXISTING 20' GREENWAY
EASEMENT
END PROPOSED SAFETY RAIL
( -G- STA. 27 +50.00)
BEGIN PROPOSED 120" HIGH VINYL COATED
CHAIN LINK FENCE ( -G- STA. 27 +50.00)
PI = 25 +91.16
EL = 569.89'
VC = 50.00'
K = 16
26 +00
PI = 26 +75.52
EL = 571.42'
VC = 60.00'
K = 17
27 +00
FERRC BOUNDARY- (570
CONTOUR - -- TYP.)
PLAN
PROFILE
svl
c'
360 57' 11.711W
PI = 28 +13.26
EL = 569.04'
VC = 80.00'
K = 17
28 +00
My
SS
�S
F
PROPOSED 10'
ASPHALT GREENWAY
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
PID# 123986
D.B. 83 PG. 555
29 +00
PI = 29 +34.36
EL = 572.74'
VC = 40.00'
K = 21
-G- STA. 29 +85.0
0
�\ W
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
EB —5114 9
R/W SHEET NO. NIA
GREENWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
W
O
O
C/ O
� k
0
M
't v� alta
STANDARD "V" DITCH
SEE DETAIL A
PROPOSED GREENWAY
EASEMENT (TYP.)
0
FROM -G- STA. 29 +85 RT. TO -G- STA. 31 +15 RT.
DITCH LEGEND
RIGHT DITCH — — — — — — —
. sU +i8.
30 +00
www.altaplanning.com
108 S. Main Street, Suite B (Physical)
P.O. 311 2453 (Mailing)
Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
mGm
PI = 30 +58.79
EL = 578.91'
VC = 80.00'
K = 18
. .SU +SU.
:1
575
Pile,
565

VEG
FW
Lf�
O
O
N
� 0
W N
W U
`1
U
�\ LB—
r\
Z-
10
-G- PI St
A = 006°
L = 16.73'
T = 8.37'
R = 150.01
N
ti
N
+
O
N
0
-I-
Ln
F-
CL
�w
<e�
AMERICAN & EFIRD INC.
PID# 124522
D.B. 1056 PG. 273
ET. AL.
\ WETLANDS (TYP.)
- -- (NOT FROM SURVEY - TYP.) -
100 YEAR FLOOD LINE (SEE FIRM MAP
#3710450600K PRELIMINARY DATE: OCT
109 2007 FOR 100 YEAR FLOOD
DESCRIPTION, PER N.C. FEMA. - TYP.)
—wLe_ _ -G- PI Sta = 23 +52.70
-wLB_ _ _ A = 0230 04' 47.3211
VEGETATED STREAM CONFLUENCES 'wLB_ L = 40.28'
(NOT FROM SURVEY - TYP.) —wLe_ _ T = 20.42'
-wLB, R = 100.00
-G- PI Sta = 21 +95.58 ' _WLB— _
— VEG A = 0150 59' 22.15"
L = 111.63' _ ' —WLB
T = 56.18' N N
WLB �N
-G
A
L
T
N R
PI Sta = 24 +62.77
0090 20' 32.5811
53.81'
26.96'
330.00
Ln
vEG R = 400.00 + a, N
FW
+ wle cM Ln N
FW N \ �Wle + rn
N VEG FW d I N +
N N FW -,SF-D DUCTIL WLB ct
Q L1J WLB — — — —WLB-
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
EB —5114
R/W SHEET NO
O
d-
M
N
EXISTING 20' GREENWAY
EASEMENT
V)
U
—WLB— —WLB— / WLB— _ — I
I —wLe— CD
—WLB_
—WLB-
- E _ETE TE �
TE E
ss ss ss
LSD
N
—WLB— — — —WLB -
�91M'
PROPOSED 10' c
// ASPHALT GREF_NJL�Ar� ��n
V G
— WL
— E T E ETE
ss
L
N
— WIDTH OF SOIL TRAIL VAR" S
— - --- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- TEi-'
- -- P+E
---- PTE P
IR SEWER PIFI I — —WLB— — — —WLB— —
v _ FW — — —WLV
—WLB— — — —WLB— — 1Mi / — — _— RCPgLE 30 0— � FW FW -
-WLB— WLB — — WLB \ I—
E T T F
�_S wa�
N060 29' 57.811E PROPOSED GREENWAY
EASEMENT (FOLLOW FERC
BOUNDARY - TYP.)
PLAN
PROFILE
pf-OR
ss
ill
^firs
CATAWBA RIVER
FLOW
SHEET NO.
8
N/A
GREENWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
alta
www.altaplanning.com
108 S. Main Street, Suite B (Physical)
P.O. Box 2453 (Mailing)
Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
— —WLB— — —
I SRC BOUNDARY (570
CONTOUR - TYP.)
REMOVE AND RESET
EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE
AS NECESSARY
BEGIN PROPOSED
SAFETY RAIL
( -G- STA. 24 +50.00)
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R % W ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
ION
mGm
tol
W
O
N
:1
565
20 +00 21 +00 22 +00 23 +00
24 +00
25 +00
565
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■
■■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■
■■
■ ■
■■■
■I•
• •:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■
.
■■■■■
■■
■
■ ■
■■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■�
PI
EL = 571.84'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■
■
■ ■■■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■■■
■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■■
EL
VC = 40.00/
VC = 120.001
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
40.00'
K = 23
VC 40.00/
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■IK
53
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
—
____________________
__________
__________
__I
____
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
_________
..............................
.......................................................................................
...............................
—
565
20 +00 21 +00 22 +00 23 +00
24 +00
25 +00
565

—WLB— — — —WLB— — — —WLB— — — —WLB' '
AMERICAN & EFIRD INC.
PID# 124522
D.B. 1056 PG. 273
ET. AL.
WETLANDS (TYP.)
—WLB— — — —WLB— —
IWLB— — WLB— — —WLB— —WLB— — `Y<e\
—WLB— —
Q0 <e
\
—wLB'
F�
VEG
Fvv
rL00DWAY (NOT FROM SURVEY - TYP.)
VEGETATED STREAM CONFLUENCES
(NOT FROM SURVEY - TYP.)
VLB— — — —WLB— — — —WLB-- — —WLB— — — —WLB— — — —WLB EXISTING 20' GREENWAY EASEMENT
� PROPOSED 10'
ASPHALT GREENWAY \� <a
WLB— —
W
—1
a
ti
Q'
575
570
565
£-T — €7 E'
ss— —
15 +00
Pw
FW
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
I EB -5114
R/W SHEET NO
— FW
-G- PI Sta = 18 +94.22
0 = 0020 53' 53.94"
L = 5.06'
T = 2.53'
R = 100.00
—WLB— — — � � \
_ _ _ _WLB_ — — END PROPOSED SAFETY RAIL \ BEGIN PROPOSED SAFETY RAIL
—WLB ( -G- STA. 16 +50.00) \ ( -G- STA. 18 +00.00)
1 �
��' VEG ' — —WLB_ _
LB— — — l —WL
O-) m
C9 I`
m �
00 00
+
0 0
V)
U �
I I
I I
— WLB — — — — WLB — \ �<g I I — — — — o VEG e — — — — LB VEG — WLB— — — —WLB— — — —WLB-
-VEG G
G — — —wLe— — _ \AEG —WLB-
F- E�EI —T-� — ATE — E�.E— —E — �E ET TE �TE ETE ETE�ET�ETE E E E T� — — ETE— — �IE_E1`E�
J'
------------- - - - --- C —F C�
�S EXo SOIL DIKE/
o— —
- - ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss—�
t•__..
Eli
16 +00
PLAN
PROFILE
PI = 17 +07.70
EL = 571.24'
VC = 60.00'
K = 62
17 +00
o ,( wo
FERC BOUNDARY (570
CONTOUR - TYP.)
18 +00
IN
CATAWBA RIVER
FLOW
PI = 18 +40.67
EL = 571.90'
VC = 80.00'
K = 52
Rz
/
INCOMPLETE
PLANS
`'
M
DO \ OT USE FOR R / W
ACQUISITION
+
+
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
0
0
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
FW
Ln
V)
\
0-
e
-G-
PI Sta
= 19 +73.76
0 =
0070 27' 45.54"
L =
39.07'
T =
19.56'
R =
300.00
O
N
END PROPOSED
SAFETY RAIL
( -G- STA. 19 +50.00)
i
o
N
N
`'
M
Lc)
6�
+
+
rn
rn
0
0
Ln
V)
\
0-
e
_ —
—WLB-
TE� �0� TE ETE _
- - - - -o - - - - - -_ — �s
X13 57' 413 111E
ETE�TE-
- -- - - - - --
PROPOSED GREENW
EASEMENT (FOLLOW FERC N060 29' 57.8 E
BOUNDARY - TYP.)
19 +00
PI = 19 +25.78
EL = 571.00'
VC = 40.00'
K = 40
Olt
W
—1
-T O
-C O
O
s +
N
7r
�i
SHEET NO.
7
N/A
GREENWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
alta
www.altaplanning.com
108 S. Main Street, Suite B (Physical)
P.O. Box 2453 (Mailing)
Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
mGm
20 +00
575
Pile,
565

GENERAL NOTES:
580
1.
THE SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A COMPANY PRE - APPROVED BY
3
NCDOT FOR THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF SIMILAR TYPE STRUCTURES. THE
\
STRUCTURE SHALL BE BUILT TO THE DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SEE THE
as
O C)
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
2.
THE BRIDGE AND ABUTMENT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
�
WILL VARY BASED ON THE ACTUAL DESIGN DIMENSIONS OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE.
3.
TESTS BORES WERE CONDUCTED ON EACH END OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE AND ARE
REFLECTIVE MARKERS ON EAST SIDE OF
N w
IDENTIFIED AS B -1 AND B -2 ON THE PROJECT PLANS. THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND
o
V) U)
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS MAY BE FOUND IN THE APPENDIX OF THE CONTRACT
+�
DOCUMENTS.
z
4.
ONCE THE BRIDGE DESIGN IS FINALIZED AND THE WEIGHT OF THE BRIDGE DETERMINED,
576
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE FOUNDATIONS ON EACH END OF THE BRIDGE DESIGNED
PROPOSED SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE
TAKING IN CONSIDERATION THE DESIGN WEIGHTS, CONCRETE ABUTMENTS, AND BEARING
CAPACITY OF THE TIMBER SUPPORT PILES. SEE THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR
cn U)
DETAILED FOUNDATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
PROPOSED GROUND MAX. GRADE
5.
THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE SUPPORT
w
STRUCTURE TO FULLY CARRY THE PIPE. SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
6.
ACCESS TO THE SITE FOR PURPOSES OF INSTALLING THE SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE IS
CHAIN LINK FENCE
X
AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITY OF MOUNT HOLLY PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH END OF THE
X _�
I
SUPPORT STRUCTURE. CROSSING OF THE FENCED IN AREA OF THE WASTEWATER
/ m
\
TREATMENT PLANT MUST BE COORDINATED ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE WITH THE CHIEF
Sq Mqx PROPOSED GROUND
OPERATOR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. ANY DAMAGE TO THE CITY PROPERTY
L-11
�
\\ la
AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE SITE MUST BE REPAIRED BY THE
/
GRAS E
CONTRACTOR TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OR BETTER. THE CHAIN LINK FENCING
572
ELEV.= 574.4f
SURROUNDING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MAY BE TEMPORARILY REMOVED TO
�
��
- - - --
ALLOW SITE ACCESS; HOWEVER, THE AREA SHALL BE RE- SECURED AT THE END OF THE
aj
/
WORKDAY OR WHENEVER THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT ACTIVELY WORKING ON -SITE. ACCESS
�
o
TO THE SITE BY OTHER MEANS SHALL BE COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH
BIRCH
THE APPROPRIATE CONTROLLING AGENCY AND PROPERTY OWNERS.
O
.:
564
5 E75
10 +00
CITY OF MT. HOLLY
PID# 124524, 124528, 205613
D.B. 4003 PG. 955
D.B. 1925 PG. 279
D.B. 862 PG. 206
P.B 68 PG. 90
10 +50
M 0!
3
\
as
O C)
`\
�
REFLECTIVE MARKERS ON EAST SIDE OF
N w
ca
o
V) U)
STRUCTURE ® MAX. 10' SPACING
+�
ea
z
v
m
PROPOSED SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE
cn U)
PROPOSED GROUND MAX. GRADE
1
w
5%
CHAIN LINK FENCE
X
X��
X _�
I
I I II / o�
/ m
\
X X X X X X X X
Sq Mqx PROPOSED GROUND
2U
L-11
�
\\ la
DOUBLER - --
/
GRAS E
JO `"I 1-�
�Z
/
dl
ELEV.= 574.4f
- - - - -- - - --
�
��
- - - --
/
aj
/
MIN. 6" CLR. (TYP.)
�
o
//
O
BIRCH
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — 28" TREE
5
— — — — CLUSTER 78
O
/
/
TOP OF EX. CONCRETE
- _ - - -
EV. 7f
CLUSTER
— — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o TREE 57� —
Ocp�
SLOPE PROTEC ION
/
�I��
%� �n0
' I ' o
------------------------ - - - - -- a - - - -- -576
ELEV.= 573.2f
_
EX. 14"
--- -
— — -- — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — -- — — -- — — TREE EX. 1 575
~
CONCRETE ABUTMENT
/ cnMO
co -t
STEEL FO MA
RCE
I
SEE DETAIL SHEET B -2 (TYP.)
/
I
�
-- —c _ -_ --
I
II
EXISTING GROUND
�
EX. 14" STEEL FORCE
MAIN
ELEV.= 570
FERC BOUNDARY I
PROPOSED PIPE SUPPORT (TYP.)
'
'
TIMBER SUPPORT PILE (TYP.)
I
I
I 1
II WATER LEVEL
\
5 E75
10 +00
CITY OF MT. HOLLY
PID# 124524, 124528, 205613
D.B. 4003 PG. 955
D.B. 1925 PG. 279
D.B. 862 PG. 206
P.B 68 PG. 90
10 +50
11+00
V: 1 " =2'
PROPOSED SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE
RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION
WITHIN FERC PBL APPROX. 23'X3'
SAW EX. WOOD PILES
AT GROUND LINE AND 10'
REMOVE (4 TOTAL) ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_--- - - - - -- zw o
BM HUB — — — — — — —575— — — — — — — — — — — � — — � -- - ,. ,� o o cr EX. EXPOSED 14" STEEL FORCE MAIN
N 563794.738 ------ - - - - -- _
E 1400349.794 - - - - 10 00 B -2
� \ELEV 574.44' - - - - -- - - - - - -- 10' ASPHALT -
� -- - - -- - - - -- GREENWAY TRAIL
/ - - - - - - - - - - --- APPROX. LOCATION - 575
-574—
OAK /
OAK
— — — — — — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — — �� OAK
OAK
------------- - - - - -- TOP OF BANK _ _ �_ _ -e- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- _
- ------------------------------
--------------
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —J/ i `� OAK
_ _ _ i OAK -
_ - _
OAK OAK
48" OAii
_ 14" FERC BOUNDARY CLUSTER
-_ TREE 570' CONTOUR
10' OAK -------- ---- - - - - -- ------ — —
14" BIRCH WATERS EDGE
6" OAK
0 34 LFf OF
ORANGE SAFETY FENCE
j USI NFRASTRUCTURE
US I
sil OF CAROLINA, INC.
1043 E. MOREHEAD STREET, SUITE 203
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28204
NC LICENSE # C -1950
TOP OF PIPE
MIN. CLR.
-F- -
11+50
I
I
AMERICAN & EFIRD INC.
PID# 124522
D.B. 1056 PG. 273
ET. AL.
I
5e0 I a Ita
PLANNING + DESIGN
www.altaplanning.com
P.O. Box 2453
576 Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
572
.:
564
_11+W
;''CO \ \\ \ o TREE
/ — —573— — \ \
w EIP E �E
TRIPLE + M N
/ � N ONi O OAK N N
/ / Z rn N °° EX. 20' ��----- - - - - --
/ / w O a "� GREENWAY
a o 574 1-00
EASEMENT
u')�
/ I j N Zw
I i Z w 11 50
SS
1 1 � EIP SS — _SS SS
ELEV.- 572.1 1 I TOP OF PIPE
J
10' ELEV.= 571.34' _R6M0\'
EX. CONCRETE SLOPE No
SPAS
POTION TO REMAIN
CLASS II RIP RAP SLOPE - - -
PROTECTION MIN 36" THICK
WI LINER (TYP.) INSTALL 10' V0.038 ACRES TO BE PERMITTED
EACH SIDE OF EX SEWER AND
AS SHOWN FROM TOP OF WITHIN FERC PROJECT BOUNDARY
SLOPE TO TOE OF SLOPE.
RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION
WITHIN FERC PBL APPROX. 40'X3'
CATAWBA RIVER (LAKE WYLIE)
FLOW
P LAN
H: 1' =10"
____ -- -_TOP OF BANK__________
—
WATERS EDGE
- -- SPLIT RAIL FENCE (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL SHEET B -2
FERC BOUNDARY
570' CONTOUR
43 LFf OF
ORANGE SAFETY FENCE
H= 5 0 5 10 20
3
\
as
M
`\
�
X
ca
o
I
I
3
ea
v
1
/
�W
CHAIN LINK FENCE
X
X��
X _�
I
I I II / o�
/ m
\
X X X X X X X X
2U
L-11
�
\\ la
DOUBLER - --
/
JO `"I 1-�
�Z
/
dl
_ -
- - - - -- - - --
-
��
- - - --
/
aj
/
— — __-- 5so------- 0 579
/
T
//
O
BIRCH
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — 28" TREE
5
— — — — CLUSTER 78
O
/
/
— —
�'/
J 0 �+y
CLUSTER
— — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o TREE 57� —
Ocp�
/
�I��
%� �n0
' I ' o
------------------------ - - - - -- a - - - -- -576
_
--- -
— — -- — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — -- — — -- — — TREE EX. 1 575
~
—
/ cnMO
co -t
I
_
-_ SS - - -�5- -- �g - - SS SS -- �� - - - -- - - --
-= - �_ SS
/
u)
-- —c _ -_ --
SS
11+00
V: 1 " =2'
PROPOSED SEWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE
RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION
WITHIN FERC PBL APPROX. 23'X3'
SAW EX. WOOD PILES
AT GROUND LINE AND 10'
REMOVE (4 TOTAL) ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_--- - - - - -- zw o
BM HUB — — — — — — —575— — — — — — — — — — — � — — � -- - ,. ,� o o cr EX. EXPOSED 14" STEEL FORCE MAIN
N 563794.738 ------ - - - - -- _
E 1400349.794 - - - - 10 00 B -2
� \ELEV 574.44' - - - - -- - - - - - -- 10' ASPHALT -
� -- - - -- - - - -- GREENWAY TRAIL
/ - - - - - - - - - - --- APPROX. LOCATION - 575
-574—
OAK /
OAK
— — — — — — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — — �� OAK
OAK
------------- - - - - -- TOP OF BANK _ _ �_ _ -e- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- _
- ------------------------------
--------------
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —J/ i `� OAK
_ _ _ i OAK -
_ - _
OAK OAK
48" OAii
_ 14" FERC BOUNDARY CLUSTER
-_ TREE 570' CONTOUR
10' OAK -------- ---- - - - - -- ------ — —
14" BIRCH WATERS EDGE
6" OAK
0 34 LFf OF
ORANGE SAFETY FENCE
j USI NFRASTRUCTURE
US I
sil OF CAROLINA, INC.
1043 E. MOREHEAD STREET, SUITE 203
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28204
NC LICENSE # C -1950
TOP OF PIPE
MIN. CLR.
-F- -
11+50
I
I
AMERICAN & EFIRD INC.
PID# 124522
D.B. 1056 PG. 273
ET. AL.
I
5e0 I a Ita
PLANNING + DESIGN
www.altaplanning.com
P.O. Box 2453
576 Davidson, North Carolina 28036
p:704.255.6200
572
.:
564
_11+W
;''CO \ \\ \ o TREE
/ — —573— — \ \
w EIP E �E
TRIPLE + M N
/ � N ONi O OAK N N
/ / Z rn N °° EX. 20' ��----- - - - - --
/ / w O a "� GREENWAY
a o 574 1-00
EASEMENT
u')�
/ I j N Zw
I i Z w 11 50
SS
1 1 � EIP SS — _SS SS
ELEV.- 572.1 1 I TOP OF PIPE
J
10' ELEV.= 571.34' _R6M0\'
EX. CONCRETE SLOPE No
SPAS
POTION TO REMAIN
CLASS II RIP RAP SLOPE - - -
PROTECTION MIN 36" THICK
WI LINER (TYP.) INSTALL 10' V0.038 ACRES TO BE PERMITTED
EACH SIDE OF EX SEWER AND
AS SHOWN FROM TOP OF WITHIN FERC PROJECT BOUNDARY
SLOPE TO TOE OF SLOPE.
RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION
WITHIN FERC PBL APPROX. 40'X3'
CATAWBA RIVER (LAKE WYLIE)
FLOW
P LAN
H: 1' =10"
____ -- -_TOP OF BANK__________
—
WATERS EDGE
- -- SPLIT RAIL FENCE (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL SHEET B -2
FERC BOUNDARY
570' CONTOUR
43 LFf OF
ORANGE SAFETY FENCE
H= 5 0 5 10 20
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
REGISTRATION:
0
U
O
z
0
z
CO
G
PROGRESS
DRAWINGS
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED: RDC
REVIEWED: RAF
DRAWN: BSS
12 -047 1 1 .20.2013
PROJECT NO. DATE
SANITARY
SEWER
SUPPORT
STRUCTURE
SHEET NO.
B -1
OF
3
as
M
L
�
ca
o
3
ea
v
REVISIONS
NO DATE ITEM
REGISTRATION:
0
U
O
z
0
z
CO
G
PROGRESS
DRAWINGS
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED: RDC
REVIEWED: RAF
DRAWN: BSS
12 -047 1 1 .20.2013
PROJECT NO. DATE
SANITARY
SEWER
SUPPORT
STRUCTURE
SHEET NO.
B -1
OF

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1, Mr. Danny Jackson, representing the City of Mount Holly, hereby certify that I have
authorized Thomas Blackwell of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and
take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Lj.-IJ)�,4m
Applican 's ign ure
f &a
L
Agent's signature
6 t ( 05/29/14
Date Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 42 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
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:
Mount Holly Greenway Trail
2b.
County:
Gaston County
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Mount Holly
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Duke Energy Corporation; American & Efrid, Inc.; City of Mount Holly; Clariant
Corporation
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
0083 -0555; ADMIN -COMB; 0862 -206; 2690 -0142
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
422 S. Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28242; PO Box 507, Mt Holly, NC 28120; City of
Mount Holly, NC; 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Owner
4b.
Name:
Mr. Danny Jackson
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
City of Mount Holly
4d.
Street address:
PO Box 406
4e.
City, state, zip:
Mount Holly, North Carolina 28120
4f.
Telephone no.:
704 - 827 -3931
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Tom Blackwell, PWS
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e.
Telephone no.:
704 - 527 -1177
5f.
Fax no.:
704- 527 -1133
5g.
Email address:
tom @cws- inc.net
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
4506063575, 3596944920, 3596938588, 4506073537
Latitude: N35.2885270 Longitude: -
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
W81.0103250
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
4.5 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Catawba River
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c.
River basin:
Santee (HU# 03050103)
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is approximately is 4.5 acres in extent. The current land use for the project area is mixture of wooded areas,
power line right -of -ways, exiting trails, and gravel roads. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer
negundo), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), and
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.0207 acre
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
49 If of perennial channel
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Carolina Thread Trail is a regional network of greenways and trails that will reach 15 counties and 2.3 million citizens in
both North and South Carolina. Greenways are vegetated natural buffers that improve water quality, reduce the impacts
of flooding, and provide wildlife habitat. Its aim is to link people, places, cities, towns, and attractions. The trail will
preserve the natural areas of the Carolinas and will be a place for exploration of nature, culture, science and history, and
general recreation.
The purpose of this project is to construct a new portion of the Mount Holly Greenway Trail and to tie it to the existing Trail
along the Catawba River. The proposed Trail will tie into the existing Mount Holly Greenway and will eventually be part of
the larger Carolina Thread Trail system. The proposed project will serve both passive and active recreational
opportunities for greenway users, while maintaining and preserving the natural aspects of the site.
The proposed project will involve the construction of approximately 7,000 linear feet of 10 -foot wide greenway trail (Figure 6,
attached).
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All work will be
constructed in the dry.
This project is part of a linear greenway project along the Catawba River. Route alignment was designed to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetland and streams based on CWS's wetland delineation and mapping work. Impacts have been
reduced to 38 linear feet of stream channel, 0.0207 acre of wetlands, and 63 linear feet of bank stabilization. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Additionally, there
will be no net above grade fills within the 100 -year floodplain.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past.
Comments:
El Yes ® No El Unknown
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
El 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.
S.
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 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ❑ T
Fill
PFO1 E
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.017
W2 ® P ❑ T
Fill
PF01 E
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.0037
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.0207 ac
2h. Comments: Total wetland impacts include 0.0207 acre.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ® P ❑ T
Pipe
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
3'
26'
Stream A
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ® P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
Perennial RPW
Stream A
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
3'
12'
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
38 LF
3i. Comments: Impacts include a total of 38 linear feet (0.0021 acre) of perennial channel.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
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
Open Water Inlet
Bank Stabilization
inlet
63 bank feet
02 ❑ PEI T
03 ❑ PEI T
04 ❑ PEI T
4L Total open water impacts
63 bank feet
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5L 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 12
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 any 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)
for impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
required?
T
B1 ®P ❑ T
Greenway
Trail
Catawba
❑ Yes s
23,000 sq ft
580 sq ft
Greenway
❑ Yes
B2 ❑ P ®T
Trail
Catawba
® No
43,211 sq ft
5,235 sq ft
Easement
B3 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
63,211 sq ft
5,815 sq ft
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All work will be constructed in the
d ry.
This project is part of a linear greenway project along the Catawba River. Route alignment was designed to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetland and streams based on CWS's wetland delineation and mapping work. Impacts have been
reduced to 38 linear feet of stream channel, 0.0207 acre of wetlands, and 63 linear feet of bank stabilization. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Additionally, there will be no net
above grade fills within the 100 -year floodplain.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
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 project?
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 7 of 12
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 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: This is a greenway project and does not contain any piped conveyances
❑ Yes ® No
or concentrated flow. All flow will be diffused sheet flow.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
< 24 %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ 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 government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ 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
S.
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 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a linear greenway trail project and will result in no additional future development.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
F-1 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?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on April 21, 2014 to determine the
presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response dated May 12, 2014, NCNHP stated that Element Occurrence data show a current record for
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), federally listed as Endangered, as occurring in Tuckaseegee Park,
adjacent to the southern end of the proposed project. However, habitat for this species does not occur within the project
limits, and no individuals of this species were observed during the field visit on October 9, 2013. This project will have no
effect on this species. A copy of the correspondence is attached.
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: http: / /sharpfin.nmfs. noaa. gov /website /EFH_Mapper /map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 21, 2014 to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a
response dated May 15, 2014, SHPO stated, "We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed." CWS
also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and found no sites of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance
within the project corridor. A copy of the correspondence is attached.
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: Impacts proposed for this project occur in the 100 -Year FEMA
floodplain of the Catawba River. There will be no above grade fills.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM (# 3710359600K and 3710450600K)
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Mr. Tom Blackwell, PWS
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
6/10/14
Date
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: l
Project/Site; o
Latitude; N 35,188SZ
Evaluator-
f ��� rr
County:
Longitude: W61. 01dig're
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent
Stream Determination (circle oney
Ephemeral intermittent Permlal
tither 64 P
e.g. Quad eme;
if � 19 or perennial it a 30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotai = F 0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1
2
CT6
3, In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
(D
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
No = 0
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
w
1
f. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
25. Algae
1
2
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
Votes:
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
° artificial dit&es are not rated: see diT1.5 sions in manual u
B. HArologv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Oaseflow
0
1
1
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
CT6
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
3
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = X.
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
CO:
2
3
22, Fish
0
w
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
w
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1V
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1,5 Other w 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Votes:
Stretch:

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1 — Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '
1. Applicant's Name: US Infrastructure of Carolina, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: T. Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames,WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 10 -9 -2013 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30p
5. Name of Stream: UT to Catawba River 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC# 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 17 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 701f 10. County: Gaston, County, NC
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): The reach evaluated is located between A & E Drive
and the Catawba River in Mount Holly, North Carolina. This reach is located at about the halfway point in the linear project.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.288517% W81.010325'
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: mild, mid -70s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 79', clear, sunny, breezy
16. 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)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (NO ) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ED19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Residential 30 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 3' -4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2' -4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. 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): 54 Comments: .
Evaluator's Signature 4�Ld Date 10 -9 -13
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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
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
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r*
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
.L
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
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 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
2
>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
00
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
14
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
2
i
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)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = 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)
54
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Mount Holly Greenway Trail City /County: Gaston County Sampling Date: 10 -9 -13
Applicant /Owner: US Infrastructure of the Carolinas, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point DP1 - Wetland AA
Investigator(s): Thomas Blackwell, PWS & Kelly Thames, WPIT Section, Township, Range: Mount Holly
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat.: N35.288527° Long.: W81.010325° Datum: NA1583
Soil Map Unit Name Chewacla silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) NWI Classification:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes
Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal Yes
circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydric soil present? Yes I Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is
required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (A1)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
X Water Marks (131)
X Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Drift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Soils (C6)
—Saturation
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Imagery (137)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
X FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
X No Depth (inches):
0 -2'
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
X No Depth (inches):
3"
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
X No Depth (inches):
0"
present? Y
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

VtUt I A I IUN - Use scientITIC names OT plants
Sampling Point: DP1 - Wetland AA
50/20 Thresholds
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
20% 50%
Tree Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft. )
Cover
Species
Status
Tree Stratum 5 12
1
Acer negundo
10
Y
FAC
Sapling /Shrub Stratum 1 3
2
Betula nigra
5
Y
FACW
Herb Stratum 14 36
3
Ulmus rubra
5
Y
FAC
Woody Vine Stratum 0 0
4
Platanus occidentalis
3
N
FACW
5
Dominance Test Worksheet
6
Number of Dominant
7
Species that are OBL,
8
FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
9
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across all Strata: 5 (B)
23
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
Sapling /Shrub
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B)
Stratum Plot Size (
15 ft. )
% Cover
Species
Status
1
Acernegundo
5
Y
FAC
Prevalence Index Worksheet
2
Total % Cover of:
3
OBL species 65 x 1 = 65
4
FACW species 11 x 2 = 22
5
FAC species 23 x 3 = 69
6
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
7
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
8
Column totals 99 (A) 156 (B)
9
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.58
10
5
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum Plot Size (
5 ft. )
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Cover
Species
Status
X Dominance test is >50%
1
Saururus cernuus
60
Y
OBL
X Prevalence index is 53.0*
2
Peltandra virginica
5
N
OBL
Morphological adaptations` (provide
3
Arundinaria gigantea
3
N
FACW
supporting data in Remarks or on a
4
Campsis radicans
3
N
FAC
sheet)
5
—separate
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
6
7
—(explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
8
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9
10
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
11
12
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
13
14
Sapling /shrub- Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
15
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
71
= Total Cover
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
Woody Vine
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Plot Size (
30 ft. )
Stratum
% Cover
Species
Status
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1
height.
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
vegetation
0
= Total Cover
present? Y
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
100% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

SOIL
Samplinq Point: DP1 - Wetland AA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type* Loc **
Texture
Remarks
0 -1
7.5YR 4/1
60
5YR 4/1
40
silt loam
1 -15
10YR 3/1
80
7.5YR 4/6
20
silt loam
15 -20
7.5YR 4/1
70
7 /5YR 4/4
30
clay loam
*Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
* *Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
—Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_(MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_(MLRA 147, 148) _(MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
X Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation
and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Hydric soil present? Y
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Mount Holly Greenway Trail City /County: Gaston County Sampling Date: 10 -9 -13
Applicant /Owner: US Infrastructure of the Carolinas, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point DP2 - Upland
Investigator(s): Thomas Blackwell, PWS & Kelly Thames, WPIT Section, Township, Range: Mount Holly
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat.: N35.288527° Long.: W81.010325° Datum: NA1583
Soil Map Unit Name Chewacla silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) NWI Classification:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes
Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal Yes
circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydric soil present? No I Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non - jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
No
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
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Soils (C6)
—Saturation
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Imagery (137)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
present? N
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
There are no indicators of wetland hydrology present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

VtUt I A I IUN - Use scientITic names OT plants
Sampling Point: DP2 - Upland
50/20 Thresholds
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
20% 50%
Tree Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft. )
Cover
Species
Status
Tree Stratum 10 25
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
20
Y
FACU
Sapling /Shrub Stratum 2 5
2
Quercus phellos
10
Y
FAC
Herb Stratum 3 8
3
Betula nigra
10
Y
FACW
Woody Vine Stratum 0 0
4
Acer negundo
5
N
FAC
5
Celtis laevigata
5
N
FACW
Dominance Test Worksheet
6
Number of Dominant
7
Species that are OBL,
8
FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
9
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across all Strata: 8 (B)
50
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
Sapling /Shrub
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
FACW, or FAC: 87.50% (A/B)
Stratum Plot Size (
15 ft. )
% Cover
Species
Status
1
Acernegundo
5
Y
FAC
Prevalence Index Worksheet
2
Betula nigra
5
Y
FACW
Total % Cover of:
3
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
4
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
5
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
6
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
7
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
8
Column totals 75 (A) 220 (B)
9
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.93
10
10
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum Plot Size (
5 ft. )
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Cover
Species
Status
X Dominance test is >50%
1
Toxicodendron radicans
5
Y
FAC
X Prevalence index is 53.0*
2
Lonicera japonica
5
Y
FAC
Morphological adaptations` (provide
3
Arundinaria gigantea
5
Y
FACW
supporting data in Remarks or on a
4
_separate sheet)
5
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
6
7
—(explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
8
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9
10
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
11
12
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
13
14
Sapling /shrub- Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
15
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
15
= Total Cover
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
Woody Vine
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Plot Size (
30 ft. )
Stratum
% Cover
Species
Status
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1
height.
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
vegetation
0
= Total Cover
present? Y
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Greater then 50% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

SOIL
Samplinq Point: DP2 - Upland
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type` Loc`"
Texture
Remarks
0 -8
10YR 3/2
100
silt clay loam
8 -20
7.5YR 4/4
60
7.5YR 4/3
40
silt clay loam
*Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
"Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
—Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _(MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(MLRA 147, 148) _(MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil present?
Remarks:
There are no indicators of hydric soils present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Mount Holly Greenway Trail City /County: Gaston County Sampling Date: 10 -9 -13
Applicant /Owner: US Infrastructure of the Carolinas, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point DP3 - Wetland BB
Investigator(s): Thomas Blackwell, PWS & Kelly Thames, WPIT Section, Township, Range: Mount Holly
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat.: N35.288527° Long.: W81.010325° Datum: NA1583
Soil Map Unit Name Chewacla silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) NWI Classification:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes
Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are "normal Yes
circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydric soil present? Yes I Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
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)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
X Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Soils (C6)
—Saturation
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Imagery (137)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
X No Depth (inches):
6"
present? Y
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

VtUt I A I IUN - Use sclentitic names OT plants
Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ) Absolute Dominant Indicator
ft.
Cover Species Status
1
2
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Indicator
3
Tree Stratum
0 0
4
0 0
Herb Stratum
5
Woody Vine Stratum
0 0
6
_separate sheet)
Dominance Test Worksheet
7
Number of Dominant
_(explain)
8
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
FACW, or FAC:
9
Total Number of Dominant
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
10
2 (B)
Percent of Dominant
0
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub
Absolute
Dominant
Plot Size ( 15 ft.
Stratum
) % Cover
Species
1
40
FACW species 58 x 2 =
2
FAC species 0 x 3 =
0
3
0
UPL species 0 x 5 =
4
Column totals 98 (A)
156 (B)
5
1.59
6
7
8
9
10
0
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft.
) Absolute
Dominant
Cover
Species
1 Juncus effusus
40
Y
2 Carex crinita
35
Y
3 Cyperus odoratus
10
N
4 Bidens aristosa
5
N
5 Persicaria sagittata
5
N
6 Ludwigia alternifolia
3
N
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
98
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Plot Size ( 30 ft.
) Absolute
Dominant
Stratum
% Cover
Species
1
2
3
4
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Indicator
Status
Sampling Point: DP3 - Wetland BB
50/20 Thresholds
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Indicator
20% 50%
Tree Stratum
0 0
Sapling /Shrub Stratum
0 0
Herb Stratum
20 49
Woody Vine Stratum
0 0
FACW
_separate sheet)
Dominance Test Worksheet
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
Number of Dominant
_(explain)
Species that are OBL,
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
FACW, or FAC:
2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Species Across all Strata:
2 (B)
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
100.00% (A/B)
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Total % Cover of:
Status
OBL species 40 x 1 =
40
FACW species 58 x 2 =
116
FAC species 0 x 3 =
0
FACU species 0 x 4 =
0
UPL species 0 x 5 =
0
Column totals 98 (A)
156 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1.59
100% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter.
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present? Y
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Indicator
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Status
_
X Dominance test is >50%
FACW
X Prevalence index is 53.0*
OBL
Morphological adaptations` (provide
FACW
supporting data in Remarks or on a
FACW
_separate sheet)
OBL
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
FACW
_(explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub- Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
Indicator
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Status
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
100% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter.
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present? Y
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

SOIL
Samplinq Point: DP3 - Wetland BB
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type` Loc`"
Texture
Remarks
0 -5
7.5YR 4/1
70
7.5YR 3/4
30
silt loam
5 -20
5YR 3/1
80
7.5YR 3/4
20
silt loam
*Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
"Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
—Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _(MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(MLRA 147, 148) _(MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) X Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil present? Y
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

AIF
NCDEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat McCrory
Governor
Ms. Kelly Thames
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28227
Kellv @cws- inc.net
RE: Mount Holly Greenway Trail
CWS Project No. 2013 -3208
Dear Ms. Thames:
Bryan Gossage
Director
May 12, 2014
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database for the proposed project referenced above. The Natural Heritage Program database
does not have any records of rare species, important natural communities, natural heritage areas
(NHAs), or conservation /managed lands within the proposed project area.
Within one mile of the proposed project area, the NCNHP database shows records for element
occurrences of the following rare species:
*For status definitions, please seethe Help document at http: / /www.ncnhp.org /web /nhp /database- search.
The occurrence record for Schweinitz's Sunflower is ca. 0.2 miles west of the proposed project area, and
the Seagreen Darter has been documented from Fites Creek, west and south of the project area.
Please note that although the NCNHP database does not show records of natural heritage elements
within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for
actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species or
important natural communities.
Feel free to contact me at 919 - 707 -8629 or Allison.Weaklev @ncdenr.gov if you have questions or need
additional information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
ELEMENT
OCCURRENCE
STATE
FEDERAL
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS*
ACCURACY
STATUS*
STATUS*
Alasmidonta robusta
Carolina Elktoe
Historical
Unknown
SR
--
Etheostoma thalassinum
Seagreen Darter
Current
Medium
SR
--
Schweinitz's
Helianthus schweinitzii
Sunflower
I Current
I High
E
E
*For status definitions, please seethe Help document at http: / /www.ncnhp.org /web /nhp /database- search.
The occurrence record for Schweinitz's Sunflower is ca. 0.2 miles west of the proposed project area, and
the Seagreen Darter has been documented from Fites Creek, west and south of the project area.
Please note that although the NCNHP database does not show records of natural heritage elements
within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for
actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species or
important natural communities.
Feel free to contact me at 919 - 707 -8629 or Allison.Weaklev @ncdenr.gov if you have questions or need
additional information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper

Mount Holly Greenway Trail
CWS Project No. 2013 -3208
May 12, 2014
Page 2
Sincerely,
=0 '�'"`# n4o
Allison Schwarz Weakley, Conservation Planner
NC Natural Heritage Program

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 15, 2014
Kelly Thames
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Mount Holly Greenway Trail, Mount Holly, CWS 2103 -3208, Gaston County, ER 14 -0825
Dear Ms. Thames:
Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2014, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earleykncdcr.go v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
(1� akdkA-ta&t�-
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: [phone] -6599

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 05/29/2014
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
City of Mount Holly
POC: Mr. Danny J. Jackson
PO Box 406
Mount Holly, North Carolina 28120
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: located
west of the Catawba River, south of Charlotte Avenue and east of South Main Street in Mount
Holly, North Carolina
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Gaston City: Mount Holly
Center coordinates of site (lat /long in degree decimal format): Lat.35.288527 ° N
Long. 81.010325 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Catawba River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 49 linear feet: 3' -4' width (ft) and /or 0.003 acre.
Cowardin Class: R5UB1
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.0207 acre
Cowardin Class: PFO1 E
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non - Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): October 9, 2013

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
2

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant /consultant:
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant /consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000, Mount
Holly, NC, Dated 1993.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
Gaston County Soil Survey.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA /FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):Site photographs of wetland areas
(October, 2013).
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
3
jw,e Ld
05/29/14
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Site
Number
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardian
Class
Estimated
Aquatic Amount of
Resource in
Review Area
Class of Aquatic
Resource
Stream A
N35.288527°
W81.010325°
R5UB1
49 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Wetland AA
N35.288527°
W81.010325°
PFO1E
0.017 acre
non- section 10 wetland
Wetland BB
N35.288527°
W81.010325°
PFO1 E
0.0037 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland
Open Water
Inlet
N35.288527°
W81.010325°
n/a
0.03 acre
non - section 10 -- non -tidal

Mount Holly Greenway May 29, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 Proiect No. 2013 -3208
Photograph A. View of Catawba River, facing north.
Photograph B. View of Wetland AA, facing east.

Mount Holly Greenway May 29, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 Proiect No. 2013 -3208
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA, facing north.
Photograph D. View of Wetland AA, facing south.

Mount Holly Greenway May 29, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 42 Proiect No. 2013 -3208
Photograph E. View of Wetland BB, facing north.
Photograph F. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream.