20150620 Ver 1_401 Application_20150615

A.
�J cws
Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR —NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
NO.
Date: 6/18/2015
CWS Project #: 2015 -3551
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
6/18/2015 5
2 6/18/2015
Application for Individual WQC
Application Fee ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted
®For your use ❑Approved as noted
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections
❑For review and comment
❑Resubmit copies for approval
❑Submit copies for distribution
❑Return corrected prints
❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, please find attached five copies of the Individual Water Quality Certification application for
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements Proiect. A check for the application fee of $570 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
11- c.
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

CWS
Carolina Welland Services
June 18, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
77
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 - 527 -1177 (office)
704 -527 -1133 (fax)
m
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Executive Summary
2 p 1 5 O 6 2 O
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit and Section 401 Individual Water Quality
Certification Application
The UNCC Campus Storm Water improvements project consists of seven sites, totaling approximately
35 acres. The sites are located on the University of North Carolina — Charlotte (UNCC) campus
(Figures 1 -3, attached). The purpose of this project includes stormwater improvements on the UNC
Charlotte main campus. Storm water improvements will be proposed for the Davis Lake Site and for
six additional sites. Dewberry has subcontracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to request a
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this
project.
The Davis Lake Site project includes retrofitting an existing pond (Davis Lake) into a stormwater
best management practice (BMP) to treat runoff from on -site impervious areas (Figures 13 and 14).
This project requires a preliminary jurisdictional verification and a section 404/401 Individual Permit.
Site No. 1 includes a proposed regenerative stormwater conveyance system to be constructed in line
with a non - jurisdictional ephemeral conveyance. Site No.l will not require permitting as no
jurisdictional features will be impacted. However, a PJD verification of the non - jurisdictional
ephemeral conveyance is being requested.
Site No. 2 involves maintenance within a non jurisdictional stormwater management facility. This
facility is a dry detention basin that will be retrofitted as an extended detention wetland BMP or a wet
pond BMP. Site No. 2 will not require a permit as no jurisdictional features will be impacted.
However, a verification of the non - jurisdictional stormwater management facility is being requested.
Site No. 3 involves the restoration of Toby Creek and its tributaries within the UNC Charlotte main
campus. At this point in time, only Reach B is being considered for restoration. Due to the constraints
along this reach, the reach will not be relocated and instead will be stabilized in place. Natural channel
designs (NCD) techniques, including bioengineering, floodplain benching, riparian buffer restoration,
and in- stream structures will be utilized in this design. UNCC will likely request mitigation credit for
restoration work completed on Toby Creek or will complete the project in partnership with City of
Charlotte and /or the North.Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS, formerly NCEEP). Once plans have been finalized, they
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Anmlication
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
will be submitted to the USACE for permitting and mitigation credit determination. Currently, CWS
is requesting a verification of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project boundaries.
Site No. 4 proposes maintenance improvements to an existing pond on the western side of the UNCC
campus with the purpose of flood control. The improvements will not result in additional permanent
impacts to jurisdictional waters but a verification of the on -site jurisdictional features and a permit for
this maintenance work is requested.
Site No. 5 involves stream restoration of the degraded channel flowing through the botanical garden
on the east side of the UNCC campus. All impacts due the restoration will be temporary. However, a
verification of the on -site features is requested.
Site No. 6 involves stream restoration and construction of a stormwater management facility.
Construction of the stormwater management facility will result in permanent impacts to jurisdictional
waters and will therefore require permitting and verification.
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704 - 408 -1683, or through email at gregg @cws -
inc.net should you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Z7--3- (!�l - �/k&.�
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
Attachments: IP package
cc: Mr. Philip Jones
2
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Staff Scientist I1
.►J

_1.1
d►CJCWS
Carolina Wetland Services
June 18, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
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, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Section 404 Individual Permit Application and Section 401 Individual Water
Quality Certification
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2015 -3551
Dear Mr. Elliott and Ms. Higgins:
The UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements project consists of seven sites, totaling approximately
35 acres. The sites are located on the University of North Carolina — Charlotte (UNCC) campus
(Figures 1 -3, attached). The purpose of this project includes retrofitting an existing pond (Davis Lake)
into a stormwater best management practice (BMP) pond to treat runoff from on -site impervious areas.
Additionally, stormwater improvements will be proposed for six additional sites located on the
campus. Dewberry has subcontracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to request verification
for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for
this project.
Applicant Name: UNCC; POC: Mr. Philip M. Jones
Mailing Address: 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 - 687 -0514
Street Address of Project: Several locations on UNC Charlotte Main Campus in Charlotte, NC
28223
Tax Parcel ID: portion of 04931102A
Waterway: UT to Toby Creek
Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (LIU# 03040105)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.303697 °, W80.735128°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Harrisburg, NC, dated 1996
Current Land Use
The site consists of university buildings with maintained landscaping and wooded areas. Typical on-
site vegetation includes red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), autumn
NORTH CAROLINA ' SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
.June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
olive (Eleaganus umbellata), common violet (Viola sororia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and fescue (Festuca sp.). An aerial photograph of the project area is attached (Figure 4).
According to the Current and Historic Soil Surveys of Mecklenburg County' (Figures 5a and 5b,
attached), on -site soils consist of Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (EnB), Helena sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes (HeB), Monacan loam (MO), Urban land (Ur), Wilkes loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
(WkD), Wilkes loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (WkE), and Wilkes loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes (WkF).
Monacan loam and Helena sandy loam soils are listed on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for
Mecklenburg County and on the National Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.3
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplains
The Toby Creek Restoration project (Site 3) is located within the FEMA regulated 100 -year floodplain.
The project will not increase flooding hazard and will potentially alleviate flooding through restoration of
the degraded channel. Additionally, the 100 -year flood elevation will not change. The remaining project
sites are not located within the 100 -year FEMA floodplain (Figure 6, attached). This project will not result
in any above grade fills within the 100 -year floodplain. All work will involve excavation of soil within the
floodplain and the end result will likely balance cut and fill quantities.
Jurisdictional Delineation
Davis Lake Site
On May 29, 2014, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS), and
Kelly Thames, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
within the project area (Figure 8, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the field)
using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 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 Guidebook', with further technical guidance from the
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement 6, dated April 2012. The approximate wetland
boundaries and data points were recorded using a sub -meter Trimble Geo -XT GPS unit. A request for
verification of jurisdictional waters was submitted to the USACE Asheville Field Office on October
27, 2014. Table 1 (next page) summarizes the findings on Davis Lake Site.
'United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2013 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Z United States Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
' USDA -NRCS Hydric Soils List, http //soils usda gov /use/hydnc /lists /state html, updated April 2012
Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
s USACE Jurisdictional Determination Fonn Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operation Procedures
for conducting an approved Jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
'US Army Corps of Engineers April 2012 Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
2

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Annlication
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Table 1. Davis Lake Site - Summary of on-site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
;I.-
Jdrisdiction Stream
a iVCDWR
`Approximate.
Representtative '1
Data'Point,(DP) `
Jurisdictional
USACE/EPA' . `ti i
lute>niitten't/ `
Classifcation SYrea'tn'
Representative= `Length "• .� `, •
Approximate`,
Feature'
Rapanos
Point
-Classification,.
Photographs ', Linear Feet= r
Acreage ac:
g ( )
Total On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the US.
Classification.' Perennial
(SCP)
Score,--
Stream A
Perreen`nnial Perennial
SCP1 *
40
A0, BO 573
0.052
Stream B
Seasonal Intermittent
SCP2*
29.5
CO, DO 247
0.017
RPW
Stream Total: 8201f
0.07 ac.
Jurisdictional.
, USACE/EPA Rapanos"
v
-
a =Data Point'(DP)"
T • Reprresentative •
AFproximafe '
Featar_e'_._ °_
'_ ",. -z-- Classification=
• .
_ _ _: Photog "raphs - - a'Acreage_(ac:).'
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting RPW
DP2*
EO
0.092
Wetland BB
Directly Abutting RPW
DP2*
FO
0.015
* Attached in the original NWP3 application submitted October 27, 2014.
Additional Sites 1 -6
On March 2, 2015, CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi and Ben McGuire delineated jurisdictional
waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project area (Figure 5, attached). Jurisdictional areas
were delineated (flagged in the field) using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-
Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual8, the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook9,
with further technical guidance from the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement1o,
dated April 2012. Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of non jurisdictional upland
areas and on -site jurisdictional wetland areas are attached (DPI -DP4, Figures 9 -12). The approximate
wetland boundaries and data points were recorded using a sub -meter Trimble Geo -X 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, photograph documentation, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a
channel changes classification) within each on -site stream channel. NCDWR Stream Classification
' 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
'Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
' USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operation Procedures
for conducting an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
"US Army Corps of Engineers April 2012 Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
3
Wetland Total: I
0.107 ac
Jurisdictional USACE/EPA Rapanos
Representtative '1
Data'Point,(DP) `
Approximate• .)
Feature' __Classification ° _ _
Photographs _ =
Acreage (ac.)
Pond A Impoundment of RPW
N/A GO, HO
0.68
Open Water Total:
0.68 ac.
Total On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the US.
0.87 ac.
* Attached in the original NWP3 application submitted October 27, 2014.
Additional Sites 1 -6
On March 2, 2015, CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi and Ben McGuire delineated jurisdictional
waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project area (Figure 5, attached). Jurisdictional areas
were delineated (flagged in the field) using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-
Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual8, the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook9,
with further technical guidance from the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement1o,
dated April 2012. Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of non jurisdictional upland
areas and on -site jurisdictional wetland areas are attached (DPI -DP4, Figures 9 -12). The approximate
wetland boundaries and data points were recorded using a sub -meter Trimble Geo -X 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, photograph documentation, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a
channel changes classification) within each on -site stream channel. NCDWR Stream Classification
' 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
'Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
' USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operation Procedures
for conducting an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
"US Army Corps of Engineers April 2012 Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
3

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Junel8,2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of on -site streams are
attached as (SCP1- SCP14, Figures 9 -12).
Results
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are several
jurisdictional stream channels, three jurisdictional wetland areas, one jurisdictional pond, and one non -
jurisdictional stormwater management facility that displays wetland indicators located within the
project area. On -Site jurisdictional streams include Toby Creek and unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Toby Creek. Toby Creek is within theYadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (HU# 03040105)" and is
classified as "Class C Waters" by the NCDWR. Class C Waters are defined as: "Waters protected for
uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture."
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. ultimately flow to the Rocky River, the closest Traditional
Navigable Waters (TNW) to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. On -Site jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. for the additional sites total approximately 3.21 acres, including 5,619 linear feet (If) of
jurisdictional stream channel (Tables 2 -7). Photographs A -V are representative of the on -site features.
Site 1: Eroded Channel at Phase 14
Table 2. Site 1: Eroded Channel at Phase 14 - Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Seasonal RPWs are those streams that exhibit flow seasonally. This flow regime is the result of a
lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge to the stream channel.
Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic life white require year -round flow for reproductive
and maturation life stages.
Stream Al originates from a culvert and flows west across the project area for approximately 493
linear feet (Figure 9, attached). The upper 292 if of Stream Al exhibits moderate continuity of
channel bed and bank, weak sinuosity, weak flow, and ordinary high water widths of three feet. Stream
AI scored 25.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP2), attached. Seasonal RPW Stream Al characteristics indicate that continuous
flow is present for at least three months in a typical year. Photograph A (attached) is representative of
Seasonal RPW Stream A1.
" "HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
i'- 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams 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
4
Jurisdiction _ _
Stream
NCDWR
-
Approximate
Jurisdictional
USACE/EPA
Classification
Stream
Representative
Length
Approximate
Feature
R_a`panos
Intermittent/
Point
Classification
Photographs
LincarFeet
Acreage (ae.).
Classification.r?
Peceooial
(SCP)'
_Score
-_s
°.
Perennial
Perennial
SCP1
30.5
B
201
0.010
Stream AI
RPW
Seasonal RPW
Intermittent
SCP2
25.5
A
292
0.020
Stream Total:
493 If
0.030 ac.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Seasonal RPWs are those streams that exhibit flow seasonally. This flow regime is the result of a
lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge to the stream channel.
Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic life white require year -round flow for reproductive
and maturation life stages.
Stream Al originates from a culvert and flows west across the project area for approximately 493
linear feet (Figure 9, attached). The upper 292 if of Stream Al exhibits moderate continuity of
channel bed and bank, weak sinuosity, weak flow, and ordinary high water widths of three feet. Stream
AI scored 25.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP2), attached. Seasonal RPW Stream Al characteristics indicate that continuous
flow is present for at least three months in a typical year. Photograph A (attached) is representative of
Seasonal RPW Stream A1.
" "HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
i'- 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams 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
4

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Section 404 Individual Permit ADDlication CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically maintain flow year -round flow and
support greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs. This section describes the on-
site Perennial RPW Stream and the field observations supporting these determinations.
Stream Al originates from a culvert and flows west across the project area for approximately 493 linear
feet (Figure 9, attached). The lower 201 linear feet exhibits strong flow, a three to five foot average
ordinary high water width, and moderate sinuosity. The lower portion of Stream A 1 was classified as a
Relatively Permanent Water with Perennial Flow (RPW) according to USACE /EPA guidance. Perennial
RPW Stream Al scored 30.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP2, attached). Photograph B (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW
Stream A].
Site 2: Dry Detention Basin near Union Deck
Table 3. Site 2: Dry Basin near Union Deck - Summary of on -site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdiction
- - --
Stream
NCDWR'-
.Approxim ,
'Jurisdictional USACE/EPA
Classification
Stream a
Representative ate Approximate
Length ,.
Feature
Intermittent/
Point ``
Classification;
Photographs Acreage(ac:)
Linear.
'
Classifcation. ".
op
Pcrennial
(SCl')e,
Scoie`,, - .
n
= _
Feeb(If)
_
—
S
Stream A2
Intermittent
SCP4
28
D
87
0'006
RPW
Stream B2 S R_PWal Intermittent SCP5 22.5 E 164 0.011
son
Stream C2 SeRaPWal Intermittent SCP6 20.5 F 49 0.003
Stream Total: 300 If 0.02 ac.
Total On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the US. 0.02 ac.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A2 originates off site and flows northwest across the project area for approximately 87 if
before continuing off site (Figure 10, attached). Stream B2 flows northwest for 164 if within the
project boundaries and Stream C2 flows 49 If north until its confluence with B2. Streams A2, B2, and
C2 scored 28, 22.5 and 20.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating intermittent status (SCP4 -SCP6, respectively). Streams A2 -C2 exhibit moderate continuity
of channel bed and bank, weak sinuosity, moderate to weak flow, and ordinary high water widths of
two to three feet. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three
months in a typical year. Streams A2, B2 and C2 were classified as Relatively Permanent Waters with
seasonal flow (Seasonal RPWs) according to USACE /EPA guidance. Photographs D, E and F
(attached) are representative of Seasonal RPW Streams A2, B2, and C2, respectively.
13 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 Two classifications ofjunsdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Section 404 Individual Permit Annlication CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
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 saturated soil conditions. "14 The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands.
These parameters are as follows: l) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology, and 3) Hydric
Soils. 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 the field observations that led
to their determinations.
There is a non - jurisdictional stormwater management facility within the project limits for Site No. 2.
This facility is a dry detention basin that displays wetland indicators that include hydric soils and
vegetation. There indicators are most likely formed by poor soil drainage in the area in which the
facility was constructed. Based on recent guidance from the U.S. EPA and USACE this area would be
considered non jurisdictional.
Site 3: Tobv Creek Restoration
Table 4. Site 3: Toby Creek Restoration - Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdiction .`
.�
- Stream
=NCDWR .
Stream`
-= - `•
'Appr`ozimmte'
Approximateb
Jurisdictional_
=USAGE %EPA`
_.
Intermittent/
ClA,ssirication
Repie`segtative
L "en ' h,
,
Feature
Feature
Ra anos,Point
P
`Perennial
`ClassificationPhotograplis
�
�
. _
- '-
Linear Feet, (1
Acreage (ac.)_ _
aClassification.'s
' _
(SCP)
Score
n
Stream A3
SeaaP�al
Intermittent
SCP4
28
D
106
0.007
Stream 133
SeaaP�al
Intermittent
SCPS
22.5
E
82
0.006
Stream C3
PerrePnn al
Perennial
SCP7
35
H
2,354
0.432
Stream D3
Seasonal
Intermittent
SCP8
20
I
629
0.043
RPW
Stream E3
Seasonal
Intermittent
SCP9
21
J
69
0.005
RPW
Stream F3 SeaaP�al Intermittent
Jurisdictional _ USACE/EPA' Rapanos
,F,eature_ _a ,,; _ Classitcation, __ ,
Wetland AA3
Wetland 13133
Directly Abutting RPW
K 10 1 0.001
Stream Total: 3,250 I 0.494 ac.
Data Point(DP)s _Representative '`_ Approximate;
,Photographs, : Acreage,(ac:)>`r
DP3 L 0.132
Directly Abutting RPW DP3
Zi
0.139
Wetland Total: 1 0.271 ac.
Total On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the US. 1 0.765 ac.
"Env ironmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
15 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 Two classifications ofjunsdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
0

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Aaalication
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Stream C3 (Toby Creek) originates off site and flows northeast for approximately 2,354 linear feet before
continuing off -site (Figure 10). Stream C3 scored 35 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP7, attached). Stream C3 exhibits strong flow, a six to
ten foot average ordinary high water width, and strong continuity of bed and bank. Stream C3 was
classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with Perennial Flow (RPW) according to USACE /EPA
guidance. Photograph H (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW Stream C3.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Streams A3, B3, and D3 -F3 scored 20 to 28 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP4, SCP5, SCP8. and SCP9, respectively),
attached. On -Site seasonal streams exhibit moderate continuity of channel bed and bank, weak
sinuosity, weak to moderate flow, and ordinary high water widths of approximately three feet. Stream
characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three months in a typical year.
Stream A3, B3 and D3 -1`3 were classified as Relatively Permanent Waters with seasonal flow
(Seasonal RPW) according to USACE /EPA guidance. Photographs I -K (attached) are representative
of Seasonal RPW Streams A3, B3, and D3 -F3, respectively.
Wetlands
Wetlands AA3 and 13133 are forested wetlands (PFOI B) and are approximately 0. 132 and 0. 139 acre in
extent, respectively. Wetlands AA3 and 13133 are located directly abutting RPW streams in the
northeastern and southeastern portion of the site, respectively (Figure 10). Wetlands AA3 and BB3
exhibit low chroma soils, saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, oxidized
rhizospheres on living roots, water - stained leaves, and wetland drainage patterns. Dominant
vegetation in these wetlands include sweetgum, cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). A Wetland Determination Data
Form representative of Wetlands AA3 and 13133 is attached as DP3. Photographs L and M (attached)
are representative of Wetlands AA3 and 13133, respectively.
7

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Annlication
Site 4: CRI Lake Overflow
June18,2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Table 5. Site 4: CRI Lake Overflow - Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A4 originates from Pond A4 and flows southeast for approximately 221 if until continuing off
site (Figure XX). The upper 49 if of Stream A4 exhibits weak continuity of channel bed and bank,
absent sinuosity, moderate flow, and ordinary high water widths of two feet. The upper portion of
Stream A4 was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with seasonal flow (Seasonal RPW)
according to USACE /EPA guidance. Seasonal RPW Stream A4 scored 23 out of a possible 63 points
on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP11), attached. Stream
characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three months in a typical year.
Photograph O is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream A4.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A4 originates from Pond A4 and flows southeast for approximately 221 if until continuing off site
(Figure XX). The lower 173 if of Stream A4 exhibits strong flow, a three to five foot average ordinary
high water width, and moderated sinuosity. Stream A4 scored 33 out of a possible 69.5 points on the
NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP12, attached). Stream A4 was
classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with Perennial Flow (RPW) according to USACE/EPA
guidance. Photograph P is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A4.
Wetlands
Wetland AA4 is a forested wetland (PFOIB) and is approximately 0.009 acre in extent. Wetland AA4
is located adjacent to the Pond A4 on the western portion of the site (Figure 11). Wetland AA4
exhibits low chroma soils, saturation within the upper two inches of the soil profile, oxidized
16 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 Two classifications ofjunsdichonal 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
8
Jurisdiction
Stream NCDWR
A PP roximste ..
Jurisdictional
USACE/EPA ,Classifcation
Strea►n '-
Representative engtti .
Approximate t,
.'Feature -
Intermittent/ =..
- °Rapanos. ;°
ca
`Point Classifho`n°
:Photographs " . Lineaifeet
Acreage(ac.)
- - -
Perennial;
iClaS9lfleailon -. °'
(SCP) Score • '=
(lt) .
Seasonal RPW Intermittent
SCPl l 23
O 49
0.002
Stream A4
Perennial RPW Perennial
SCP12 33
P 173
0.016
Stream Total: 221 If
0.018 ac.
Jurisdictional
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Data Point (DP) -
Representative
Approximate ;
Feature _ _
a_ -Classification _
_�t�= .
Photograplrs,`-._s 1.
Acreage
Wetland AA4
Adjacent to Pond A4
DP3
Q
0.009
Wetland Total:
0.009 ac.
Jurisdictional'
�.
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Data Point (DP)
Representative I
Approximate
Feature _
.Clas §ification
Photographs
Acreage (ac.)
Pond A4
Jurisdictional Pond
N/A
R
1.76
Open Water Total: I
1.76 ac.
Total On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the US.
1.787 ac.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A4 originates from Pond A4 and flows southeast for approximately 221 if until continuing off
site (Figure XX). The upper 49 if of Stream A4 exhibits weak continuity of channel bed and bank,
absent sinuosity, moderate flow, and ordinary high water widths of two feet. The upper portion of
Stream A4 was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with seasonal flow (Seasonal RPW)
according to USACE /EPA guidance. Seasonal RPW Stream A4 scored 23 out of a possible 63 points
on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP11), attached. Stream
characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three months in a typical year.
Photograph O is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream A4.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A4 originates from Pond A4 and flows southeast for approximately 221 if until continuing off site
(Figure XX). The lower 173 if of Stream A4 exhibits strong flow, a three to five foot average ordinary
high water width, and moderated sinuosity. Stream A4 scored 33 out of a possible 69.5 points on the
NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP12, attached). Stream A4 was
classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with Perennial Flow (RPW) according to USACE/EPA
guidance. Photograph P is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A4.
Wetlands
Wetland AA4 is a forested wetland (PFOIB) and is approximately 0.009 acre in extent. Wetland AA4
is located adjacent to the Pond A4 on the western portion of the site (Figure 11). Wetland AA4
exhibits low chroma soils, saturation within the upper two inches of the soil profile, oxidized
16 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 Two classifications ofjunsdichonal 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
8

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Section 404 Individual Permit Aonlication CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
rhizospheres on living roots, water - stained leaves, and wetland drainage patterns. Dominant
vegetation in these wetlands include sweetgum, cottonwood, green ash, and sycamore. A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA4 is attached as DP3. Photograph Q (attached)
is representative of Wetland AA4.
Ponds
Pond A4 (Figure 11) has a direct downstream connection to Stream A4 and is therefore jurisdictional.
Pond A4 is located in the middle portion of the project limits and is 1.76 acres in extent. Photograph R
(attached) is representative of Pond A4.
Site 5: Stream Restoration at New Bridge
Table 6. Site 5: Stream Restoration at New Bridge -
Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A5 flows north across the project limits for approximately 494 If until continuing off site (Figure
12). Stream A5 scored 38.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP13, attached). Perennial RPW Stream A5 exhibits strong flow, a three to
five foot average ordinary high water width, and moderate sinuosity. Photograph T (attached) is
representative of Perennial RPW Stream A5.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream 135 originates outside of the project limits and flows west across the project area for
approximately 36 if until its confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A5 (Figure 12, attached). Stream
135 scored 21.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP2), attached. Seasonal RPW Stream 135 exhibits moderate continuity of
channel bed and bank, weak sinuosity, weak flow, and ordinary high water widths of one to two feet.
Seasonal RPW Stream 135 characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three
months in a typical year. Photograph U (attached) is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream 135.
" 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
0
Jurisdiction,., -
Stream— .
NCDWR
a;'
Approximate
Jurisdictional
�`USACE /EPA
�= '
Classifcation
Stream
Representative
Length
App rozimatte
Feature
- 41apanos
Intermittent/
Point
Classification
"Photographs
Linea? Feet
Acreage (ac.)
Classification."
Perennial
(SCP)•
Score
_ Jif)
Stream A5
Perreenn al
Perennial
SCP13
38.5
T
494
0.052
Stream B5
Seasonal RPW
Intermittent
SCP14
21.5
U
36
0.002
Stream Total:
530 If
0.054 ac.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A5 flows north across the project limits for approximately 494 If until continuing off site (Figure
12). Stream A5 scored 38.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP13, attached). Perennial RPW Stream A5 exhibits strong flow, a three to
five foot average ordinary high water width, and moderate sinuosity. Photograph T (attached) is
representative of Perennial RPW Stream A5.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream 135 originates outside of the project limits and flows west across the project area for
approximately 36 if until its confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A5 (Figure 12, attached). Stream
135 scored 21.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP2), attached. Seasonal RPW Stream 135 exhibits moderate continuity of
channel bed and bank, weak sinuosity, weak flow, and ordinary high water widths of one to two feet.
Seasonal RPW Stream 135 characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three
months in a typical year. Photograph U (attached) is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream 135.
" 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 Two classifications ofjurisdictional 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
0

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Section 404 Individual Permit ADolication CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Site 6: Stream Restoration at East of Glen
Table 7. Site 6: Stream Restoration at East of Glen -
Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A6 flows northwest across the project limits for approximately 772 if until continuing off site
(Figure 12). Stream A6 scored 38.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification
Form, indicating perennial status (SCP13, attached). Perennial RWP Stream A6 exhibits strong flow, a
three to five foot average ordinary high water width, and moderate sinuosity. Photograph T is
representative of Perennial Stream A6.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
CWS consulted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) online GIS service 19 and found no sites
of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance within the project limits. Additionally, a
letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 5, 2015 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. On March 31, 2015, a response from SHPO stated, "We have conducted a
review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project." A
copy of the SHPO response letter is attached.
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) Data
Explorer20 on March 31, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered,
threatened species or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on this review, there are no
records of federally - protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project site.
However, the NCNHP database shows a record for Geogia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) within
the project limits. Georgia aster is listed as a candidate species and therefore may be federally
protected in the future. A copy of the data review report is attached.
Dewberry also contracted CWS to conduct a habitat assessment for protected species within the project
limits. CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi and Ben McGuire conducted a habitat assessment of the
project area on March 2, 2015. Transects were surveyed in areas identified as potential habitat for
1B 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 Two classifications ofjunsdlctlonal 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
19 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Service http //gis neder gov/hpoweb/ Accessed March 5, 2015
20 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https / /ncnhde natureserve org/
10
Jurisdiction_
Stream „ "'
. ' NCDWR '
4:';;'
App "roximate'
:.Jurisdictional:
_
USA'CE/EPA % % "Y' ` "' _ °
` _1a , ssifieation
' ' ' ' Stream
Repre`sen` "tattve
Length' }i; ° = Approximate'
Feature
Intermittent/` •"
Rapanos wry -, _ . �. "Point .
. Classification
Photographs
Linear'Feet Acreage (ac.)
Classification 18� Perennial
SCP, )
I
'_Score
(lt)- .
Stream A6
Perennial Perennial
SCP13
38.5
T
772 0.057
RPW
Stream Total:
772 If 0.057 ac.
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters
Stream A6 flows northwest across the project limits for approximately 772 if until continuing off site
(Figure 12). Stream A6 scored 38.5 out of a possible 63.5 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification
Form, indicating perennial status (SCP13, attached). Perennial RWP Stream A6 exhibits strong flow, a
three to five foot average ordinary high water width, and moderate sinuosity. Photograph T is
representative of Perennial Stream A6.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
CWS consulted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) online GIS service 19 and found no sites
of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance within the project limits. Additionally, a
letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 5, 2015 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project. On March 31, 2015, a response from SHPO stated, "We have conducted a
review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project." A
copy of the SHPO response letter is attached.
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) Data
Explorer20 on March 31, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered,
threatened species or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on this review, there are no
records of federally - protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project site.
However, the NCNHP database shows a record for Geogia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) within
the project limits. Georgia aster is listed as a candidate species and therefore may be federally
protected in the future. A copy of the data review report is attached.
Dewberry also contracted CWS to conduct a habitat assessment for protected species within the project
limits. CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi and Ben McGuire conducted a habitat assessment of the
project area on March 2, 2015. Transects were surveyed in areas identified as potential habitat for
1B 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 Two classifications ofjunsdlctlonal 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 floodplams or in
close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a
TN W
19 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Service http //gis neder gov/hpoweb/ Accessed March 5, 2015
20 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https / /ncnhde natureserve org/
10

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Section 404 Individual Permit Application CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
possible protected species located in the area (Smooth purple coneflower [Echinacea laevigata],
Schweinitz's sunflower [Helianthus schweinitzii], Carolina heelsplitter [Lasmigona decorata],
Michaux's sumac [Rhus michauxii], and Georgia aster [Symphyotichum georgianum]). The survey
determined that potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower and Georgia aster occur within the project
area, however no potential habitat was observed. Due to the nature of the proposed stormwater
improvements, the project is unlikely to have impact on aforementioned federally - protected species.
The Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
disease white -nose syndrome. Habitat for long -eared bat includes forested areas of any age, rocky
areas with boulders, and culverts greater than four feet wide. Due to recent population declines of
almost 89% caused by white -nose syndrome as well as continued spread of the disease, the northern
long -eared bat now receives protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Under the Act, a threatened species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, while an
endangered species is currently in danger of becoming extinct. The listing became effective on May 4,
2015.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of the amount of
wooded acres cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within any county
shown on the May 28, 2015 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached. This project takes
place within the long -eared bat habitat range. Due to the nature of these stormwater improvement
projects, more than an acre of wooded area will most likely be cleared for this project. Please note that
no physical surveying for potential habitat within this project has been included in this scope at this
time
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose and need for the UNCC Stormwater Improvements Projects (Davis Lake and Sites 1 -6) is
to provide stormwater quantity and quality treatment to runoff originating from on -site impervious
surface areas. This includes retrofitting on -site ponds to provide enhanced stormwater treatment,
restoring stream channels, and providing alternative BMPs such as regenerative stormwater
conveyances.
Alternatives Analysis
Davis Lake and all six stormwater improvement projects represent the most optimal design and location
to provide the greatest stormwater quantity and quality treatment for on -site stormwater. UNCC hired
multiple local engineering firms to analyze the site to develop an overall Stormwater Master Plan. This
plan has also involved discussions with different stakeholder groups such as NCDENR -DMS as well as
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS). These groups have helped UNCC plan and
locate suitable on -site locations for the construction of stormwater management facilities as well as
contribute to the restoration and enhancement of on -site streams and wetlands.
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 applied to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters. No impact to downstream waters is proposed and the total surface water acreage of
the on -site jurisdictional pond will approximately remain the same.
The proposed Davis Lake impacts are the result of fill in Davis Lake and total approximately 0.04 acre.
Impacts to the normal pool elevation of Davis Lake were minimized through design iterations to the
maximum extent practicable. All other impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the Davis Lake
project limits are the result of excavation of accumulated sediments (pond maintenance) from the bed of
the lake. This excavation will be completed with equipment operating from upland areas. Removed

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
sediments will be placed in upland areas and seeded and stabilized. All disturbed areas will be seeded
and matted with natural fiber matting.
Sites 1, 2, and 3 propose to utilize non jurisdictional features and natural channel design restoration
techniques to improve the water quality through of Toby Creek and downstream waters. These
techniques represent the least damaging environmental alternative and will only result in temporary
impacts to Toby Creek and its tributaries during the construction of the stream restoration component of
the project. The restoration will also provide an ecological uplift of a currently degraded section of the
Toby Creek.
Sites 4, 5, and 6 represent limited options for developing stormwater management facilities within an
urban environment. UNCC is challenged with developing public open spaces for its students and as well
as providing stormwater facilities that can also serve as water quality treatment. Therefore, Site 4 is
proposing an existing pond to be retrofitted to improve its water quality treatment function. Sites 5 and 6
are located in the "Glen" garden and will include off -line floodplain benching, as well as stream
restoration that will include temporary water storage through the use of a weir and excavated advanced
floodplain.
CWS believes the proposed designs represent the least damaging environmental alternative while still
meeting the goals of the project. All proposed impacts are designed to improve storm water management
and water quality management of stormwater runoff.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters associated with UNCC Campus Storm Water
Improvements are summarized in Tables 8 throughl2.
Davis Lake Site
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with this project are limited to a total of
approximately 0.04 acre of a jurisdictional pond (Figure 13, attached).
The existing 0.68 acre pond (Pond A) is proposed to be partially filled, while the eastern portion will
be expanded by excavation. The proposed new pond will have a pool surface area of 0.64 acre at
normal pool elevation. Therefore, total impacts to Pond A (Davis Lake) total 0.04 acre of permanent
impacts and are the result of fill (Figure 13). The retrofit of Davis Lake includes grading a littoral shelf
that will be planted with native wetland species (Figure 14). This stormwater feature will provide habitat
as well as improve water quality of stormwater runoff by filtration. Table 8 summarizes the unavoidable
impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
12

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Anolication
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Table 8. Davis Lake Site. Summary of Impacts to on -site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Intermittent/•` `=__;
Temporary %.Permanents'
- T
;
�.�., .
Featu'r`e
Perei►mal
_
' 'Irr►pact Type _ =_
Appcoxiinaie
=
- Approximate
Acreage
Feature _°
-
- A
Length 002.
Stream C3
Perennial Restoration
2,354
N/A
Fill
N/A
- 2,3541E, `,,'i .`
0.04
Pond A
- - —
- - - -- -- Impacts (Total), -
- - - 2,354�lf Y - -
,0.43, ac.
Conversion to stormwater
N/A
N/A
0.64
management facility,
u
Perinanent Pond Impacts"'
w
X0:68 ac. _
Impacts (Total)
-
_ _ _..
_ -, =
0.68 ac.�
Site 1: Eroded channel at Phase 1.
The stormwater channel proposed for restoration was evaluated to be a non jurisdictional ephemeral
conveyance. This project proposes no impacts to the on -site downstream waters (Figure 9;
Seasonal/Perennial RPW Al). Therefore the project (Site 1) will cause no impacts to
jurisdictional waters.
Site 2: Dry Basin near Union Deck
The on -site Wetland AA2 is located in an old sediment basin and was thus evaluated to be non -
jurisdictional (Figure 10). Therefore the project (Site 2) will cause no impacts to jurisdictional
waters.
Site 3: Tobv Creek Restoration
The project (Site 3) proposes to restore approximately 2,354 if of stream channel. The stream
restoration project proposes to re- establish a floodplain connection to a section of Toby Creek which
will provide an ecological uplift of the system. The restoration work will involve the restoration of a
section of incised creek channel, installing in- stream structures for stability and habitat, and native
plantings for stream bank and buffer stabilization. The design will coordinate with the Mecklenburg
County Parks Greenway Department to accommodate a proposed parallel greenway trail system. The
project will also be used as an academic resource for the University's environmental sciences and to
promote the public's knowledge and understanding of the benefits of stream restoration. Figure 15
illustrates the location of the proposed stream restoration. All impacts to Toby Creek will be
temporary.
Table 9. Site 3. Summary of impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
,Temporary ° /'Permanent
Jurisdictional'
ilhtermittentl '
hnpact`Type
- Approximate
Approx.•
Acreage
Feature _°
Perennial
° =
- - - Length -(tft - - --
;
--
Stream C3
Perennial Restoration
2,354
0.43
Temgo6ev Stream Impacts,
- 2,3541E, `,,'i .`
0.43 ac.
- - —
- - - -- -- Impacts (Total), -
- - - 2,354�lf Y - -
,0.43, ac.
Site 4: CRI Lake Overflow
The project (Site 4) proposes a retrofit of Pond A4 to a stormwater management facility to alleviate
flooding and improve water quality. The project proposes to replace an existing 36 -inch corrugated
13

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit APDlicatlon
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
metal pipe (CMP) with a 12 -inch water quality /auxiliary spillway (Figure 16). This will not result in
additional permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters. Proposed temporary impacts include 49 if of
Seasonal RPW A4 as a result of excavation. Additionally, the project proposes channel stabilization
for approximately 100 if of heavily eroded perennial stream channel (Perennial RPW A4).
Table 10. Site 4. Summary of impacts to on -site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Temporary / Permanent
Jurisdietional "IntermittentF: r� , �' �� App<ox.
-= Impac t ype.-� %,Ek, proximate__
Feature r Perennials -� Acreage
- - -_ �s t - -- — -- — - -- -- - Length (If)
Intermittent Excavation
49 If
Stream A4
Temporary / Permanent
Perennial
Channel stabilization 100 If
- Approximate =
Conversion to
Pond A4 N/A
stormwater -
Acre`a'ge
- - - -
management facility
Temporary Stream Lnpacts
149 If
`Permanent Pon d,Impacts
a 494 If-,
,Temporary Impacts (Total)
_ ` ` 149 if
Site 5: Stream Restoration at the New Bridv-e
0.002
0.010
1.76
0.0121f
0.0121f
The project (Site 5) proposes to restore approximately 494 if of perennial stream channel. Extensive
erosion has been observed throughout the entire length that flows through the botanical gardens.
Channel and bank stabilization is necessary in order to avoid further erosion and sediment loading.
Figure 17 illustrates the location for the proposed restoration.
Table 11. Site 5. Summary of impacts to on -site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional-' "tlnterniittent/ °,
Temporary / Permanent
Approx.
_
Impact Type
- Approximate =
Feature Perennial
Length.(If) - -
Acre`a'ge
- - - -
Stream A5 Perennial Restoration
494 if
0.052
emporary Stream Impacts _ a t
a 494 If-,
O':052"ac:
4941f
0.052aac.
Site 6: Stream Restoration at East of Glen
The project (Site 6) proposes to restore approximately 612 if of perennial stream channel. Channel
stabilization is necessary in order to prevent further erosion. Extensive damage from erosion within
the main channel has been observed throughout the entire botanical gardens. The project also
proposes a stormwater management facility at the southwestern corner of the project to reduce run -off
stormwater velocities and piping of impaired stream channel with a 24" reinforced concrete culvert
(RPC). The stormwater management facility would fill approximately 75 if of stream channel and the
culvert length will be approximately 60 If. In addition, the project proposes to install a rip rap apron
on the downstream outlet from the RCP culvert. Figure 17 show the location of proposed impacts.
14

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Annlication
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Table 12. Site 6. Summary of impacts to on -site .jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Temporary / Permanent
Approx.
_.Interrriittent/
Impact Type,
Feature Perennial �_
Approximate
Acreage
Lefiv
Restoration
612
0.030
Fill (Storm Water
75
0.013
Stream A6 Perennial Management facility)
Culvert
60
0.013
Riprap apron
10
0.001
Permanent Stream Impacts
1451f
0:057 ac.
Impacts (Total)
t
1711f _.
_ 0:057 ac.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to less than 0.1 acre of open
water and less than 150 if of steam channel. Compensatory mitigation is proposed for these impacts
with in kind, on -site mitigation. UNCC proposes to restore approximately 3,500 if of on -site stream
channels in order to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional waters of U.S.
15

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Section 404 Individual Permit Annlication
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704 - 408 -1683, or through email at gregg @cws -
inc.net should you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
0 �
Gregg Antemann, PWS Aliisa Harjuniemi
Principal Scientist Staff Scientist I1
Attachments: Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 3. Vicinity Aerial Photograph
Figure 4. Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 5. USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 5b. USDA -NRCS Historic Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 6. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 7. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Map - Overview
Figure 8. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary — Davis Lake Site
Figure 9 Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary — Site 1
Figure 10. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary — Sites 2 & 3
Figure 11. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary — Site 4
Figure 12. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary — Sites 5 & 6
Figure 13. Proposed Impacts — Davis Lake
Figure 14. Davis Lake Planting Plan
Figures 15 -17 Proposed Impacts — Additional Sites
Agent Authorization Form
Section 404 Individual Permit Application (ENG FORM 4345)
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DPI -DP4)
NCDWR Stream Classification Forms (SCP1- SCP14)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP13)
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP I -DP4)
Agency Correspondence
White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Form
Representative Photographs - Davis Lake (AO -HO)
Representative Photographs — Additional Sites (A -V)
cc: File
lD

North Tryon Street (HWY 29)
Site 4. CRI Lake overflow
I
10�A
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration
`iV`
JToby Creek
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
}A"
Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
i�
` Site 6. Stream restoration
at east end of Glen
�t
Site 1` Eroded Channel at Phase 14
C- WS
Caroline Wetland SeMCm
WWW.CWS- INC.NET
�r
f.
Legend
Davis Lake Site
Additional Sites 1 -6
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER PROVIDED BY
=I
JI
MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPATMENT, DATED 2010.
Streams
SCALE: 1 . 3000'
DATE 4-10-15
CWS PROJECT NO
DRAWN BY: ^"u
2015 -3551
!1V fl
PPLICANT NO:
CHECKED BY
GC n
`iV`
JToby Creek
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
}A"
Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
i�
` Site 6. Stream restoration
at east end of Glen
�t
Site 1` Eroded Channel at Phase 14
C- WS
Caroline Wetland SeMCm
WWW.CWS- INC.NET
�r
f.
Legend
Davis Lake Site
Additional Sites 1 -6
\
C
Roads
—
Streams
V7 1
0 3,000 Feet
Vicinity Map
UNCC Storm Water Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3551
i
FIGURE NO.
1
of
17..,../

.5� .. ! f� �i ' � �f�' • i'i'i . �� �'. � r + ..y7C� - • F �Y��
' =. �f � � � .iJ <A �'�I'�� —�. I; r♦ f � li'�•� � �_ tt .C••1R'C _ _
.'1 ` t � r fJ + �I{ wa+f�l sRt`: y��`ti�� ®r•! ' •1 �`,,
• DTI/ 4 �. � - .J�
_ • • _ 111 - ��• ! I YY
i7 1,
PST/ `..
- � � -�� , fps �' 1 • �*- 3` . j ^''`i') l �_ � �k
r i
1 :r 4.
F T6
own •
1 1 1

,d " I-,l '�' �`: r ' "` Pit;,•
1 -
North Tryon Street (HWY 29)
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
:'. { r
Site 4. CRI Lake overflow
J ~per Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
Site 6. Stream restoration
P , at east end of Glen
Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration ter` h " ';�
i �, • r
University City Blvd. (HWY 49) t+``
. 1 - -__ i � �,-ll — nyd'� 11 ¢•.. a: ` _-rte _ kJ
Legend
v. a_r Davis Lake Site
a _
Additional Sites 1 -6
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
SCALE: 1 „ 2000, DATE: 4-10-15 FIGURE NO.
dd ��� Vicinity Aerial Imagery Map 3
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY:
2015 -3551 AVH ` 1JNCC Storm Water Improvements of
PPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: ` CaroM• WNI••dS•Mm Charlotte, North Carolina 17
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

Site 4. CRI Lake overflow
f
I
I >`
Jt .
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration
_e
ph
r
ip
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
F
4 w�
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015.
SCALE: 1" . 1000' DATE: 4 -10 -15
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2015 -3551 AV H m�s�
� �Vf1S
PPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:
GCA VYVY MS- INC.NET
Site 6. Stream restoration
at east end of Glen
Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14
Legend
Davis Lake Site
Additional Sites 1 -6
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
FIGURE NO.
Aerial Imagery Map 4
UNCC Storm Water Improvements of
Charlotte, North Carolina 17
CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

v'RE E11B tti1 ,
WkD
Mo
North Tryon Street (HWY 29)
EnB
WkD \ - I � f Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
F
WkD
io Lake overflow V`D
WkD li > `o
C� ( �
WKD 7
Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge `
WkF n6
Ph. cD J
EnB
Mo
Site 6. Stream restoration
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration at east end of Glen
�r WkD
sity Rd
Harris Boulevard MF Ur
EnB Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14
WkD
WkD d oa
^otia CUB
High h \
Soils - Description
EnB —Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
t HeB— Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MO— Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Ur - Urban land
W —Water
WkD— Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
WkE - Wilkes loam, 15 -25% slopes
WkF - Wilkes loam, 25 -45% slopes
REFERENCE: CURRENT USDA -NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, DATED 2013
SCALE: , DATE: I -"
1 „ .1000 4 -10 -15
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY: I I J
2015 -3551 AV H C S 1
PPLICANT NO CHECKED BY:
Ic GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET
N`
University City Blvd. (HWY 49)
Legend
Davis Lake Site
Q Additional Sites 1 -6
Roads
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
Current USDA -NRCS Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
of Mecklenburg County 5
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements of
Charlotte, North Carolina 17 /
CWS Project No. 2014 -3318

fl ' N.
r
E WRB t'vrsco
-
Site
2 D Basin near Union eck
- Dry D
kB Wk + £nB
` Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
Me 1W�kE$ - �N'kD Wk � _
WkF
..
�,,.. kQ EnD
WW
Ene
Site 4. CRI Lake overflow Ur
+Sli Me8 Site 6. Stream restoration
Wks En at east end of Glen
0 -Alt
.
j r C tA3
WkE
O
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration Davis Lake Site
Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14 j
E NZ .� Y p -
CPB2
i
Wkp
..i CCO
Soils - Description
EnB —Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes V
y
HeB— Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MO— Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Legend
Ur - Urban land
i W- -Water -
Davis Lake Site
f WkD— Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes sj Additional Sites 1 -6
WkE - Wilkes loam, 15 -25% slopes
WkF - Wilkes loam, 25 -45% slopes r% eB2
ff r "/ %� 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: HISTORIC USDA -NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, SHEET 5, DATED 1976.
SCALE: 1„ 1000' uDATE. 6 -18 -15 Historic USDA -NRCS Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
of Mecklenburg County 5b
2015 -- 3551
CCM PROJECT DRAWN BY: AVH / CWs
iJNCC Storm Water Improvements of
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY Carolina WenandServices Charlotte, North Carolina 17
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

Or
�sr
�a
o�
Site 4. CRI Lake overflow
Creek
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration
\s /M�
■
CJ REFERENCE: FEMAFIRM N0.3710458700K
<,� 4//// / //i PIT 0.
SCALE: 1" :1000' DATE 4 -10 -15
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY ���
2015 -3551
PPLICANT NO. CHECKED BY
GC ^
Q� F
v r
O JS�y \k a
v Ga�P
Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge >
.;a o
Pme Ln
Elm Ln
_ L
Craver R i d
U � O-
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
r
5to115 �
0
Rd
Broadrick gv
C lS
Cn
C�
M
m
> I High Risek�d
Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14
Site 6. Stream restoration
at east end of Glen
U /
0
� a
o
L. \
-94 -po. ' ✓ \ \mac
od rey
a o.
c�
ash
�V ira Legend
o F�o� ykeOr Davis Lake Site
�o°e eo,,n. Additional Sites 1 -6
Mea e 4,., �
ow Vista R ce Kilmer r 100 year existing floodplain
` Streams
m
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet c
FIGURE NO.
FEMA Floodplain Map
I.� 6
�\ C Storm Water Improvements of
Camhna UNCCharlotte, North Carolina 17
WWW.CWS- INC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

R ��
Nk
I/
:.��`O �'', ��/�� ,•. /. c� ��� {rte' '�• �'-
f .k i ,Z
. 7 N �eix
S6+ d- f -FJ Lade nverilovv _ p
AWL
XV
r
f
02ru do"
dr
w ' Site 5. Stream restoration at new bridge
'y r
-Ak, ►
Site 2. Dry Basin near Union Deck
e
r r
Site 3. Toby Creek Restoration
�r' a H► r - ,.,
tom, a► - :, t „ ; ': � � s �: ,
M
M
,
Site 6. Stream restoration
at east end of Glen
i
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015.
Legend
.` Davis Lake Site
® Additional Sites 1 -6
r
Perennial RPW
I:
•..••••• Seasonal RPW
t Ephemeral conveyance
��^••. „�i Pond
t Site 1. Eroded Channel at Phase 14
Wetlands
400 200 0 400 Feet
r
LO = Q
O Q C7
r
r y
�} m m
0
w
Y
U
w
o � v
O Lo
O LQ
M
z LO
o
wC) F
'o N z
a
ui a �3
a.
U N
N � a
F
W
Z
0
Z
W
C
c v
2 s c
o Z
3 Z
o s�
MIDGQ Asa
� vU`
u
°L
FIGURE NO.
7
of
17

�
`
�
Palk Gym L ne
Perennial RPW Stream A
573 LF
Wetland BE3
0.015 ac
Memorial H
Pond A (Davis L
0.68 ac
scpi
Seasonal RPW Stream B Wetland AA Legend
247 LF -0.092 ac Project Limits
Davis Lake
Perennial RPW
Seasonal RPW
Buildings
Roads
100 50 0 100 Feet
Parcels
ASCP Stream Classification Point
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED. CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED
WITH A SUB-METER GPS UNIT BY CWS. INC. ON MAY 29, 2014. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES ODP Data Point
HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS
DEPARTMENT, DATED 2009. STREAM AND WETLAND LAYERS GENERATED BY CWS, INC., Photo Location and Directi n
DATED MAY 2014
SCALE: 1". 100, DATE: 5-29-14 Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY KMT CM Boundary Map 8
2014-3318 Q"ww vvedww SWOM Davis Lake of
CANT NO: CHECKED BY. I Charlotte, North Carolina 17

r
i� Seasonal RPW Al
Perennial RPW Al - a r 292 If
201 If t
r W ''-.ti",�`,�
Non - jurisdictional ephemeral conveyance
i
Legend
Site 1
Davis Lake Site
'•'
Perennial RPW
!
••...••• Seasonal RPW
• • . • • • • • Ephemeral conveyance
Photo Location & Direction
♦ SCP Stream Classification Point
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015. STREAM
"' �!
1 OO 5O 0 100 Feet
AND WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC., MARCH 2015.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
SCALE: 1" : 100' DATE. 4 -6 -15
Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT — DRAWN BY. AVH
2015 -3551
Boundaries - Site 1
9
UNCC Storm Water Improvements of
PLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:
C
CYYYIYiw✓Irwlon
Charlotte, North Carolina 17
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET
CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

r. r
�_ >•
1 7th •i
r
Seasonal RPW A3
106 If
Wetland AA3
0.132 acre
Seasonal RPW 133
82 If
Seasonal RPW F3
10 If —
Perennial RPW C3
2,354 If
Seasonal RPW D3
629 If
Seasonal RPW B2
164 If
Seasonal RPW E3
69 If
w D114 a
Wetland AA3
0.139 acre
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015. STREAM
AND WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC., MARCH 2015.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
SCALE: 1" : 300' DATE: 4-6-15 I,I
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: A, /H I I �'►'w.
2015 -3551 V [�' GCWS APPLICANT NO. CHECKED BY: -
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET
Seasonal RPW A2
-- 87 If
Non - jurisdictional Wetland AA2
– 0.119 acre (See text)
r'
s � ~
PrIll -
N4e 00
Seasonal RPW C2
49 If
Legend
Sites 2 & 3
Wetlands
Perennial RPW
-- -• --•• Seasonal RPW
°— Culvert
Photo Location &
Direction
♦ SCP Stream Classification Point
• DP Data Point
300 150 0
300 Feet
.pproximate Jurisdictional
FIGURE NO.
Boundaries - Sites 2 & 3
10
UNCC Storm Water Improvements
of
Charlotte, North Carolina
17
CWS Project No. 2015 -3551
//

Non - jurisdictional ephemeral conveyance
i
.f• �, t..ti HIV, .1 �t-, 1`- ��,� , •� 1 {�
1 � �
1A
f
{ 1 '�, �� mil! '�i ,' •
h _
Y
rr:
Y r,
1 � y
i .
Wetland AA4
0.009 acre
- Perennial RPW A4
r Seasonal RPW A4
49 If
-.1
�'" Legend
U
1
Site 4
j Pond
' .�•: Wetlands
' Perennial RPW
s= •••••• Seasonal RPW
a •i Ephemeral conveyance
h.
Culvert
Photo Location & Direction
r
♦ S C P Stream Classification Point
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015. STREAM 100 50 0 100 Feet
AND WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC., MARCH 2015.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
SCALE: 1" 100' DATE. 4 -7 -15 Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: � } Boundaries - Site 4 11
2015 -3551 AVH �! ews UNCC Storm Water Improvements of
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY �._ _ Groilns WetlenO SenACee Charlotte, North Carolina 17
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

i
4
Y
Yj
7,,AF
a- ;
I�
I am, R Nelms
WA
- ER
00
r
auit=
Seasonal RPW B5 '
36 If
Legend
AA Perennial RPW A6 t Y
772 If Sites 5 & 6
't r. Perennial RPW
......• Seasonal RPW
'i
....... Ephemeral conveyance
Culvert
Photo Location & Direction
♦SCP Stream Classification Point
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED APRIL 2015, STREAM ZOO tOO 0 200 Feet
AND WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC., MARCH 2015.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
1" : 200' 4 -7 -15 Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO.
DRAWN BY Boundaries - Sites 5 & 6 12
2015 -3551 AVH ms UNCC Storm Water Improvements of
CHECKED BY: Charlotte, North Carolina 17
YYWW.0 MINC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3551

E
4
/r
' - 'rte — ��__�_ -- - �` -` \� B5,\ '�\' -------- --
- - - ------ -- - - -- - - _ \� ' -� �\ \ , - -- - -- / / /. ,.' // - -- -, ,I i ,' ', / - --
-' /- - - -_ - 'UAVI,� L'AK�' �` `t ` ` \ ` ',\ ' %�_ -_-
-
` _ ;PROPOSED -D-.64 ACRE§J ��� t' =' - _ ' , ;�' ♦ �`\ t1 i ,I i ' r - -
I PACT TO PbND A:- ' �i/ 1 I \\ `` \ `♦ `\ ` ```, \ `` `'
— - --865
04 A E /y65 1, I I `, \,♦ ♦ \`„ ` \ \.6, \'PIED NIAL- RPW-&TRE�d- - -��•��
----- - - - - -- - - _ \ /_ / , -' - - , , II `, ', t, �,y y' `.� \ ------------ - - - - -- - --_�- '�,
_ ___ ___ /y- , t _ _
D ` J - --- ------- - -- - --- % - t �.- Tr- .� TT `
l tt - - -��: \ \ \`\ �`- `Wr=TLAjNaS -BB
,/MEMORIAL \� — ' , -r I - '_ _ - - t \ \\ , ' - - - - -- - - - - - -- - 88: - - - - -- - / /,, _
-1• / _ - ` -I WETLAND
1/ HALL t ', L, — I �// " r� \� \� '�DAVI$1K�``�I \ \ \- ___ -- - .— — }EXCAVATION - OA07 ACRE
, ��'/ r � r- - -\ �° � �EXIBTIN(i'•Q�6�'ACREST
;' _637
C e
Fountain
lto , 657.50' Btm:648.71' �A
-- - _
- - --'i r /
-- -- -- . 1/11
/ / Vj
y\l / / / / / i/ / / / / i/ / r / / ' / / i it / fl
4, / / /'''� / r /
J\ l� /i / /J%, / / i/ i /r' /l`.': /�/ ri, li �/ if i l it
If
If
I II , 1 I i , I I � I I /♦ / , I I
it it i i ttt �� `t i ii t`t i l i i Y
, ,'I ``t 1'1 ', 'I Y
s
A
/
WT 6' A:
- j'EXAVATION -/0. / .09/2 .ACRE
6SM3
_____' _ 837 \ \`
/ PERE NN AL RPW STREAM A:
r EXCAVATION -148 LF I'/ / / /
If
( / /
rv, I
f Dewberry'
Dewberry Engineers Inc..
twee rc ma
N(MIS x[-0019
�
N
I
- �
Do
w
ZO -
a:
♦
rY
,� g
O z�
o
�Z
yJ
U
Zj
00
Q
4
0
n
SEAL
PRELIMINARY -
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
KEY PLAN
FIGURE 13
SCALE V -201
a m 2tr 4a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IND. I1A,E er cescwo,ioN
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY BYL
APPROVED BY RML
CHECKED BY RSN
DATE OCTOBER 16, 2014
Trn E
GRADING PLAN
PROJECT NC. -(K+ -,l
C3.01

C
LC
1 ) 2 ,
,'MEMORIAL
HALL
— \ 1
1
1
1
�1
I
= J'
_j
3
PLAN VIEW
4
I 5
\ _- _____ - -__-
Dewberry'
Dewbo" Engil rawlnc..
Iwb BW�Iw
C1rbb. NC Hiw
r�. TOasa4ar
w.e.�y.oem
rKelLS `Fa+n
Z
Z
LU
O �`z
- F- 0�
W 0,
1-- ---- - - - - --
� ' ' /
/ /
/'//'/ /., /, //, /' /, /, /' /'/ i �� /' //' ' /'i',
LEGEND
Z _x
0.
BML
_ _ - - -- _ - - -- : - --- ,, I
e g
— CHECKED BY
BML
v
B SEEDBED PREPARATION
665 —
0.
i
�
O
1-- ---- - - - - --
� ' ' /
/ /
/'//'/ /., /, //, /' /, /, /' /'/ i �� /' //' ' /'i',
SEAL
PRELIMINARY -
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
REV PAN
FIGURE 14
SCALE r _20' H
Q 10' 20 417
II✓—immmi
N0 MTE BT DESC111o11pN
REVISIONS
LEGEND
DRAWN BY
BML
APPROVED BY
— CHECKED BY
BML
DATE
B SEEDBED PREPARATION
TITLE
CHISEL COMPACTED AREAS AND SPREAD TOPSOIL Y DEEP OVER ADVERSE SOIL
CONDITIONS IF APPLICABLE.
+ + ZONE 1
+ ++
SCARIFY THE ENTIRE AREA TO 6' DEEP.
REMOVE ALL LOOSE ROCK. ROOTS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS LEAVING SURFACE
ZONE 2
REASONABLY SMOOTH AND UNIFORM.
APPLY AGRICULTURAL LIME. FERTLIZER AND SUPERPHOSPHATE UNIFORMLY AND
MIX WITH SOIL (SEE BELOW)
x x
x x x x ZONE 7
Y x
CONTINUE TILLAGE UNTIL AWELL- PULVERIZED FIRM, REASONABLY UNIFORM
x x
SEEDBED IS PREPARED 4 TO 6 INCHES DEEP.
SEED ON A FRESHLY PREPARED SEEDBED AND COVER SEED LIGHTLY WITH SEEDING
EQUIPMENT OR CULTIPACK AFTER SEEDING.
ZONES 4,5,6
MULCH IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING AND ANCHOR MULCH.
INSPECT ALL SEEDED AREAS AND MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS OR RESEEDINGS
WITHIN THE PLANTING SEASON IF POSSIBLE IF STAND SHOULD BE OVER 60%
BMP Plant List
DAMAGED. REESTABLISH FOLLOWING ORIGINAL LIME FERTILIZER AND SEEDING
ZONE
QUANTITY
DENSITY
AREA
BOTANICAL
COMMON NAME
SIZE
ROOT
IREMARKS
RATES
I 1
1079
0.51SF
2158
NYMPHAEA ODORATA
WHITE WATER LILY
5' HT1 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING I
1
1
1079
0.51SF
2158
NUPHAR LUTEUM
YELLOW COWLILY
5' HT/ 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
A CONSULT INSPECTOR MAINTENANCE TREATMENT AND D FERTILIZATION AFTER
E
PERMANENT COVER IS ESTABLISHED.
1' 7
2
86
0.51SF
196
PELTANDRA VIRGINICA
ARROW ARUM
5' HT12' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING I
IHARI
APPLY.
AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE - 2 T -10.10 RE (7 TONSlACRE IN CLAY SOILS)
FERTILIZER - 1,000 -1410.10
I 2
- 66
4301
0.5/SF
192
ELEOC QUANDRANGULAT
- - - - -- - -
PERENNIAL ELEOCHARIS
TAIL
CUTGRASS
5' HT/ 2' SPRD
-
5' HT/ 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
TRIANGULAR SPACING
- 50ACRE
SUPERPHOSPHATE - SOD LBSIACRE -20%
3
0.5/SF
862
EERSLA DRYZO D S
RICE
5' HT! 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
MULCH - 2 TONSIACRE - SMALL GRAINSTRAW
1 47
3
400
O.SISF
- - -- - - --
800
- -
SCIRPUS ATROVIRENS
--_ --
GREEN BULRUSH
5' HT/ 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING I
ANCHOR - ASPHALT EMULSION � 700 GALSACRE
3
_
400
0.51SF
800
ANDROPOCON OLOMERATUS
BUSHY BEARDGRASS
5' HT/ 2' SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
PLANTING PATTERN DETAIL
I 3
_
430
0.5/SF
860
LOBELIA CAROINALIS
CARDINAL FLOWER
15' HT/ 7 SPRD
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
NTS
I 3 _
400
0.5/SF
_ _ _
800
_
PANICUM VIRGATUM
SWITCHGRASS
_5' HT/ 2' SPRD
I
SPRIGS
TRIANGULAR SPACING
L 4.5.6
584D SF TOTAL
FESCUE/SOD
I
SEAL
PRELIMINARY -
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
REV PAN
FIGURE 14
SCALE r _20' H
Q 10' 20 417
II✓—immmi
N0 MTE BT DESC111o11pN
REVISIONS
BMP LANDSCAPING PLAN
PROJECT NO. 50059M
L3.01
TUK/EPM
DRAWN BY
BML
APPROVED BY
— CHECKED BY
BML
DATE
OCTOBER 15, 2014
TITLE
BMP LANDSCAPING PLAN
PROJECT NO. 50059M
L3.01

Legend
= Project Study Area O Potential BMP Location
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
® Identified Project Wetlands
Sanitary Sewer
M
2004 Aerial Photograph: Mecklenburg County
r�
os ,stem
�',I111iIIX'C.ple 11
1`Nnl iN�M
Toby Creek Restoration Project
University of North Carolina,
Charlotte Campus,
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
1 Inch equals 500 Feet
0 125 250 500
Feet
Figure 15
Restoration Recommendations
"V
NC COUNTIES
-WINS
MECKLENBURG
Sources: Mecklenburg County, NC; ESRI; and URS Corp - NC,

Figure 16. Proposed Improvements

Pe ak Outflow Discharge• Q (ft' /.0 Peak Discharge. Q Ih' /sec) Peak DisChalp, Q (ft' /sec) Proposed Detention Pond
Analysis POin[Nl Van landingham Glen Sire am at Gravel Pat'n Culvert Anal ysis Pont N2' Mid Stream Analysis Point N3: Dry Detention Outfall Event Inflow Outflow Net Attenuation Peak Stage (Elevation) -
Event Pre Development Exist ingCondiuom Improved (Detention) Improved (DetenoonLSemh) Event Pre- Oevoluprem ExistingCondmons Improved(Detenuon) Improved(Detentlon30ench) Even[ Pre Development ExistirigConditions Improved(Detentlen) Improved(DetembnLBendi) I (inflow
(fts /sec) (ft' /sec) Iftl I UNCCHARLOTTE
1 -Year, ]I-HOV 593 1 70.9 1 SU S.S 1-Year, 241br 51,6 63.7 49.5 e9.5 lYear, 24 -Hour 29.3 36.7 I 25.2 212 h- Year,2a -Hour )67 25.2 11.5 707.1 I Frihtles M"'Ve' rend
2- Yer,&HOr 51.4 72.S MA S,0 ZYer. ilkwr -..- Q3 63.4 �. ..47.6 476 �3 Year '6 HOUr 29.2 4D0 2i5 255 2 -Year, 6Fbu. Deegri 5srsxes
lOYer,6NOUr I -year, 6 -Hear 1226 122.6 1DYear, 6 -Hour 11111 BI 25.5 13.1 707.9
135.0 in 13LS Intl 120.9 343.7 I 1 � 6.3 7a.1 11.2 719.3
72.2 85.3 1111111 74.1 7l1 1DYear, 6 -Hour
125- Year,6-HOr I 169,6 L9.1 170.9 1q.5 2S.Yer, 4110W 1566 181.7 1596 1596 125 Year, 6 Hour 93.7 1079 963 963 25 Yea,, 6 -Hour
- _ - I 107.9 963 11.6 709.7 1
♦ -- 16
Z.
DRAINAGE iASWjC ' O
int
" MAI,
Any (�+1p EX. IRRIGATI ` ♦ _ _ - BEE)(- '2 -'iIOR
WATER LINE \.� �~
, �i- PARKING DECK
- W
48' OUTFALL.�.
EXISTING 2- MADE S BONE PATH ON �� O
WOODEN GRID DATA TO BE GRADED TO TIE __.
IN TO E705t E BRIDGE / _ ! Z
EXISTING T WIDE , DYER
> \.� \ •� �_ _ _ / i " STONE BRI Q co
/ ANALYSIS ♦i Y 1 _ O m
-iI - - - , '/ - - - POINT TO _ -_� U
�, / /�% ---- -�. _ \ WAY 7z 1 _
EXISTING WOODEN PEDESTRIAN Q LL- Z z
rte. . _ - _ - /i • i r 1 / �� - \ `� BRIDGE TO BE REMOVED. NEW Z Q
WOODEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE O
_ (1 rpa ELEVATION.
CONSTRUCTED O Q L I-
II / / �', / i/' '. -, r �24� HEADW ` - t>9 X !r\ Q Z
-�� 1�� `� w/aIP RAP APRON ` (2) �•�Qtltrivl Q �JJ Z H
USGS BLUE LINE i // I EARMFJi \ $ASfN �' „3• Qc:�- U U d W
,5; / ,FMAL ALIDNMDIT M• -
FIELD_ Proposetl Rip rap c / _S`y( F- Z C
-apron t0If - / - 1 ♦ J . Q
permanent tmpacl 01ST. /TREES TO REMAIN , \ O i- W Q
Stream A6: /' !\ •� IN IMPOUNDMENT AREA Z O
_ _ GRAVEL
- = 71 _ - - - _- _- _ rerstoralionst6121F / C;..ATHW TO BE CONSTRUCTED / SERE ABLE. pYlaCFiANNEL , - ~ Z
1\11 - A1v INTO EXIST. PATHS. wr Z _ m Q
\ _
Z _ _ ` - NEW BERN. PATH TO TIE I y "YE EXIST. O
y - -
\ _ Mi119N CAROOIS WALKING _ , W
ON 1 {
�` __ ''- '/ lz' WTFALL �� / j. � i � �A. i - Q� \ � O
-- -700- �- i / / - ' w U)
_Perennial RPW _ .� .\ -. /�, /% j / / / / / / A, >
Proposed RC
- -- _ - - -_ - Proposed stream Culvert: 601f P - _ __ -_` -
J restoration: 494 If _ _ i j ;l l // permanent impact _��
_ q�
'ROQF -- Fill: 75 It r ,vent Impact
-�;1E! plgl-'ARCK NNLSILg�T/ p.0.- __ , / v _ a t
CF M LI/1L _A�
=690
�
-STORY
Ex. PEDESTRIAN WATER
�ATH FOR
access. �A� \ \\
No I
0 ' - \ \\ I (I I/ / / /' / I
DRAINAGE BASIN 1 r o _ r 02 -17 -2011
BOUNDARY TYP.
•6TM- ♦. ��\ i / /� �_ _ - v� l 1 / J l 111 / ♦ SEE EX -2 FOR )
�VERALL I \ ? r JD
�! / /T, -f' \ \` '/i / \ •; \ . \ I 1 // BOUNDARY 'r
-.\ \J ��"- nom-'- "_xa -„�v, , _- / / _\\` \ \\ tO III 11 �I /i/ i•� / / o , c�� -z
�� _ -- _ =� _ _ _ - ' v _`'�-� // � lA� - A��AV \.vvA� �A 71 / /': / /t/ / y' � / � ❑ �. i i � I I'- -v /
7*
Vv; .� - ,� ♦ I I GRAP111C AL
3 \ O �\ _ 7 / `� y- ..�..- "�-ss� _ i -r / / / - 'y'Q ♦ `I LJ�' '` 1IZ FIGURE 17
1

I
I
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
i
1, Philip M. Jones, representing the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, hereby
certify that I have authorized Gregg Antemann 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.
i
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
d" �" I
C
e , /Q as /ture Agent's signature
10/17/14
Dat Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Form Approved __..
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB No. 0710 -0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R. Expires: 30- SEPTEMBER -2015
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources; gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710- 0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities. Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332 Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and /or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13: DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE TILLED BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Philip Middle -M Last - Jones First - Gregg Middle -C Last - Antemann
Company - U`NC Charlotte Company - Carolina Wetland Servises
E -mail Address - E -mail Address - gregg @cws- inc.net
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 9201 University City Blvd. Address- 550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
City - Charlotte State - NC Zip-28223 Country-NC City - Charlotte State - NC Zip - 28273 Country -NC
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE 10 AGENTS PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE
a. Residence b Business c Fax a. Residence b. Business c Fax
704 - 687 -0514
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Gregg Antemann to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
L1NCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Toby Creek Address N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: <N N35.303697° Longitude: <W W80.735128° City - Charlotte State- NC
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 04931102A Municipality Charlotte
Section - Township - Range -
Zip- 28223
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Project Sites are located on several locations within the UNCC Campus in Charlotte. See the Figure 1. Vicinity Map for more details.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The project proposes storm water improvements on UNCC Campus. Please see attached letter report for details.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose and need for the UNCC Stormwater Improvements Projects (Davis Lake and Sites 1 -6) is to provide stormwater quantity and
quality treatment to runoff coming from on -site impervious area. This includes retrofitting on -site ponds to provide enhanced stormwater
treatment, restoring stream channels and providing alternative BMPs like regenerative stormwater conveyances.
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20 Reason(s) for Discharge
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
122. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres
or
Linear Feet
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
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 applied to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. No impact to the downstream waters is proposed and
the total acreage of the jurisdictional pond will remain approximately the same. Please see attached letter report for details.
_.. _
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? QYes QNo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental fist).
a. Address-
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address-
City - State - Zip -
d. Address-
City - State - Zip -
e. Address-
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals /Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
' Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
Please see the signed Agent Authorization Form ✓�' C. — 6/18/15
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 3 of 3

NC IDWQ Stream IIdentificat
Date: 3/2-/Z-01-5
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent Z
if s 19 or perennial if a 30°
ion Form Version 4.11
Project /Site:
County:
1 Stream (circle one)
Ephemeral ermitte Perennial
A. Geornorpholoqy (Subtotal = / 3_)
Absent
18- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In= channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No --00
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0.5
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = .S, S )
1.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
-2
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
G. Biology (Subtotal = ' -71' )
Moderate
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
22, Fish
3
23. Crayfish
42.
24. Amphibians
Q
25. Algae
3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
2
Sketch:
S', 4e_- 1e
Latitude: J Se -36Lf.( 3 ?
Longitude: - go. :;� 333Q3
Other SGp
e.g. Quad Name:
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
W
3
(T)
2
3
1
®
3
1
42.
3
Q
2
3
0
2
3
0.5
2
3
m
2
3
0.5
(T)
1.5
0.5
Q1
1.5
Yes =3
0
-2
3
1
2
3
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
Yes
2
1
0
2
1
0
[�
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1,5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

j'i 1,
NC DWQ SVeam Adetntiiicution ]Form Version 4.11
Date: 12. w (� ProjectlSite: Ofta Latitude: J S 30 3 29 1
Evaluator: �(�! 1 lj)� County: /" 1C.Gk,16_1�� . Longitude: -Wb 336511
Strew Points: �. [ Stream Determination (circ Other scr 2
Stream is at least intermittent J
ifzl9or perennial ifZ30' Ephemeral lntermittenqjenla e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= r' S. S)
Absent
Weak
.Uloderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
m
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3
ripple -pool sequence
Notes:
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
i 5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 +
1 -
0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
(Z)
3
8. Headcuts
0 '
Q 1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
6D
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
®
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =�
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
�• 5
2
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ )
0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
f13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf,litter
(�
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = (a . S )
1
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Gig
22. Fish
(�
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
I [o
25. Algae
'0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1
°perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Yes =3
1 Q 3
(17 2 3
1 0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 4D 1.5
Yes
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
3
1
2
_3
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1,5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 31ZIZ0IS Project/Site:
Evaluator: 13JI17 County:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 2 Strea termination (circle one)
;-- 0 he era ntermittent Perennial
if 19 or perennial if =' 30' / �/
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = S. 5)
Absent
19* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
19)
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
(9)
ripple -pool sequence
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
to
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
0
Seep. 35 of manual.
9. Grade control
0
2
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No dD
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
1.5
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
Yes =3
12. Presence of Baseflow
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No =�
C. Biology (Subtotal = S
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
Moderate
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(9)
22. Fish
1
23. Crayfish
(�
24. Amphibians
2
(7
25. Algae
2
3
26. Wetland plants In streambed
2
3
-perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods.
Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Q
Sketch:
Si IC_ /.
Latitude: 3 5. 56W13 I
Longitude: -go. ?3
Other s LID
e.g. Quad Name:
Weals
Moderate
Strong
0
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
(�
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
©
2
3
Q
2
3
0.5
1.5
Yes =3
1
2
3
1
2
3
(U
0.5
0
0,5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1,5
Yes =3
2
1
0
kJ
1
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

NC )iDWQ Stream Identifil
Date: 312 f Z o t S
Evaluator: 414 j3J/ 1
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 2
if 2 19 or perennial If Z: 30'
cation Form Version 4.11
Project/Site: V/VY- CA-rrts
County:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral pgjER Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I/. S ) Absent
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence -
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No
a artificial ditches are not rated,- see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = g )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
/
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
Q
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
Chi
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
lD
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Weak
1.
1
1
Q
0.5
S; K Z.
Latitude: 3S, 30 1 31-
Longitude: "gQ, 7 936 I
Other SGp
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate
2
2
t'0
2
2
2
2
m
1
Yes =3
Strong
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
1 ® 3
Q 2 3
1 0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5
® 1 1.5
Yes {J
2 1 0
2 1 0
® 2 3
1 2 3
1 1.5
® 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
1 1.5
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

NC fiDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 31 Z /201 S Project/Site: VW c'-- h S
►l 1 64t,
Evaluator: Ayk- � j3)1*1 County: /t%L61(r17
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one)
Stream is at least intermittent 2-2,S
ermlt en Perennial
if s 19 or perennial if s 30• I Ephemeral I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_.. 9, 5 )
Absent
18• Continuity of channel bed and bank
, 0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
J 0
3. In- channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
I 0
II
ripple -pool sequence
i
4. Particle size of stream substrate
J 0
5. Active /relict floodplain
J 0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
J 0
8. Headcuts
Notes:
I
9. Grade control
J 0 I
10. Natural valley
J 0
11. Second or greater order channel
I No
6 artificial ditches are not rated; see discuss' sin manual
'
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
J Q
16. Organic debris lines or piles
I Yes =3
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
Strong
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
I M
21. Aquatic Mollusks
J
22. Fish
i
23. Crayfish
J 0
24. Amphibians
J
25. Algae
J
26. Wetland plants in streambed
J
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
1
Sketch:
S4-c- 2.
Latitude:.35, 36 Sj9$
Longitude: -$G, :7. 367184
Other SC p 5
e.g. Quad Name:
Weak
Moderate
0
Strong
62
.2
1
3
Q
2
2
3
Q
2
I
3 i
1
2•
i
3
1
I 6D
3
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
t
I 2
3
1
2
3
0.5
I Q I
1.5
1 I
1.5
I Yes =3
1
[,
3
tD
2
3
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Yes g
®
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
*
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1 I
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:
NC D WQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 31 Z12OIS
Project/Site: VA4L
6�,rAs
Latitude: 3S• aj�?,6 S 1
Evaluator: Aj 4& 6-)1V1
County: AakIC f,,,y�
Longitude: -80.
4-3160/g
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 2-0•
i
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
a
if a 19 or Aerennia! if 30 `
Ephemeral ter Itten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal 3?_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
®
I
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Q
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
I 0
1
0
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
I 0
®
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
®
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
I
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
®
2
3
8. Headcuts
QLl
1
2
3
9. Grade control
I 0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
I 0
®
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =p.
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussi ns in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0
1 I
®
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
Q
1 I
2
3
14. Leaf litter
I ®
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
I d5>
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
(5)
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =®
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
I
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C�
i
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
I
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
®
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
I ®
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
®
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
I FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream IIdlentifleal
Date: '3 / ?-/ Z. G 1 S
Evaluator: �U'-�- t� 13,
total Points: -35
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if :' 30.
ion Form Version 4.11
ProjectfSlte: 14 /44 . 6 -y'.5
County: �CGah
Stream Determination (circ e)
Ephemeral Intermittent rennl
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = % -' )
I Absent
1a• Continuity of channel bed and bank
i 0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
I 0
ripple -pool sequence
1
{ 4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
{ 9)
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0.5
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
1.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
{ CD
15. Sediment on plants or debris
{ 0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Sail -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks {
22. Fish { 0
23, Crayfish 0
24. Amphibians {
25. Algae
{ 26. Wetland plants in streambed
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
{
Sketch:
Sint 3.
Latitude: 3 S. 34 2-4- S
Longitude. -90. 7 3
Other scp
e.g. Quad Name:
Weals
Moderate
Strong
1
2
CS)
1
�
3
1
©
3
1
4D
3
1
2
3
2
3
m
2
3
1D
2
3
0.5
®
1.5
0.5
Q1
1.5
Yes =(�
1
'2
Q� j
4
2
3
1
0.5
0
1
1.5 f
d�
1
1.5
Yes =(�
2 1
0
2 1
0
2
3
1 2
3
0.5 Q
1.5
C 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

NC 1DWQ Stream Identifm
Date: 3121 Z U l S
Evaluator: An 63/p)i
�Sto!armln Potnts is at least intermittent Z d
if 2 19 or perennial if a 30'
ration Form Version 4.11
Project /Site: 04/&
County: Acch,'wk YGy
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral ermttie Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I. S )
I Absent
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
P
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
6
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
(tD
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0"
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No =t(_
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
b. S_)•
0.5
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
1.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
Yes = 3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
I (�
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal
Moderate
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1i
I
21. Aquatic Mollusks
6
22. Fish
3
23. Crayfish
2
24. Amphibians
1
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plants In streambed
2
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
{ Notes:
2
Sketch:
S mt 3.
Latltude: 3 S. 0 6 4O 1 I
Longitude: -86. 7 3112M
Other �G? 3
e.g. Quad Name:
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
�
3
1
2
3
6
2
3
0.5 1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Q
2
3
V
2
3
0.5
1.5
1
1.5
Yes = 3
1
( Q
3
1
2
3
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Yes =�
2 1
0
2 1
0
1 2
3
1 2
3
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

ETC iDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: l 2. 12 ()1 S Project/Slte: 1 0 Gcl-
Evaluator: (rr1 /-A County: _149"k" (/
Total Points: s te s I Stream Determination (circle one)
if
Stream or a least intermittent 2. � Ephemeral er ftten Perennial
if z 19 or perennral if z 3tI'
.5 ; +e- 3 .
Latitude: 3S. 3052 3 1 1
Longitude:- •�,39Z
Other ! 1
e.g. Quad Name: `, G
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
®
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
(
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
2
3
j
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
_ ¢�
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
4
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
O
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No --CO)
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discuss ns in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = b • )
12. Presence of Baseilow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
(
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
dV
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Ko = 0
Yes =10
C. Biology (Subtotal = __�6_S )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
®
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
®
1
2
3
22. Fish
®
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
®
1
1.5
�
24. Amphibians
(
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
f 26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
Sketch:

SIC DWQ Streams Identification Form Version 4.11 ,A�i/
Date: 3 1 21Z a� U/v Project/Site: 6(
Evaluator: /-W {-} k1 &) /n County: ^(c AWN JPA,
Total Points: pp Stream Determination (Cice one)
Stream Is at least intermittent O . -ftmerIntermittent Perennial
if a 19 or verennial if a 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = -?° ) Absent Weak
1
1n
1
1
m
0.5
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
t�
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
3
{ 4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
S. Active /relict floodplain
C�
6. Depositional bars or benches
l�
{ 7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
{ 9. Grade control
0
{ 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
{ 10. Natural valley
0
{ 11. second or greater order channel
No ={0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
S. S
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0
{ 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
f
14. Leaf litter
{
{ 15. Sediment on plants or debris
{ 16. Organic debris lines or piles
{ 17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal =, 6)
0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
{ 4�
{ 19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
{
{ 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
{ 21. Aquatic Mollusks
1.5
{ 22. Fish
1.5
{ 23. Crayfish
1.5
24. Amphibians
1.5
25, Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
{ 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
{ Notes:
I
Sketch:
S; 4,c q:
Latitude: 35. 30 91 ,90
Longitude: o. -:? .q 39
Other SGe 1 b
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Yes= 3
Strong
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0 '2 3
1 2 3
1 0.5 0
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Yes =4
2 1
0
2 1
0
1 2
3
1 2
3
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

Sketch:
NC iDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
/ �
Project/Site: Lc,X7
Latitude:
Evaluator: '-IM 4 )fo /✓1
County: /�jG��i („ r
Longitudes-
4 fiaq
Total Points:
Stream
Stream is at least intermittent
I Stream Determ' (circle one)
Other
Irce i�
If 2 19 or perennial if z 30'
Ephemeral ter
p
tte Perennial
e. Quad Name:
9•
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
co
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Q
1
2
I 3
j 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0 i
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
I 0 I
Q.7 I
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
I 0 1
1 I
Q
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
I ® 1
1 1
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
I 0 1
d 1
2
1 3
8. Headcuts
I ® 1
1 1
2
1 3
9. Grade control
I 0 1
0.5 (
1
I
1 10. Natural valley
I 0
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I No
=td") I
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
-
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0 I
1
I 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
®
1
2
I
3
14. Leaf litter
I I
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
j 0 1
1
I+
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
I 0
7
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
j No
= 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = it• S )
_
1 18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
i
1 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 I
?
1
I
0 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
I
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
I 0
10
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
I V
0.5 1
1
1.5 1
25. Algae
I ®
0.5 1
1
I 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0 1
1 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
I Notes:
I
I
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 312- 2-dl S Project/Site: UWIfe
Evaluator: 1104 4 County:
FYotai Points:
i I Stream Determination (clr e)
i Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermltten erenn
if z 19 or Perennial if z 30' _ _ _
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= l 6 _)
Strong
Absent
Weak
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
(,3J
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
I 0
1
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
23. Crayfish
( 0
1
ripple -pool sequence
25. Algae
® '
26. Wetland plants in streambed
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active /relict floodplain
I 0
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
I 0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
({�
8. Headcuts
0
1
i 9. Grade control
I 0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0
14. Leaf litter �,
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0
16. Organic debris lines or piles I 0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? I No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = _�. S . )
Strong
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(,3J
i 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
I 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
3
22. Fish
3
23. Crayfish
I p
24. Amphibians
ep
25. Algae
® '
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
'Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
Yes = 3
Sketch:
si -�c q-
Latitude: 35. 3U 7--� ej j! g
Longitude: 90, ?4-30
Other .SCp% Z
e.g. Quad /Name:
.Moderate
Strong
2
2
1
3
®
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
® '
I 1
1.5
1
1.5
Yes = 3
1.5
1 I '2
2• 3
1 0,5 0
[© 1 1.5
1 1.5
Yes
2
1
0
2
1
0
P
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0)
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '� f 2 l Z Gl s Project/site: j V46 4K'eC' j
Evaluator:
rTotaI e' Poin ts: Stream Determination (circle one)
reais atleast intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent erennl 18 or perennial if t 30"
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = L. ) I Absent
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
f 0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
I 0
ripple -pool sequence
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
I 0
22. Fish
6. Depositional bars or benches
I 0
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1 0
25. Algae
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
<=
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal= i )
0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
0
1 �7
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1 2
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1.5
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
26. Wedand plants in streambed
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Weak
1
,
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
St fc 6
Latitude: 3S, 3 ®9 L�y
Longitude: " "* V&,4-1
Other cf15Pl
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate
2
2
1
Yes =3
Strong
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1 '2 3�
1 Q 3
1 0.5 0
1 1.5
0.5 4 1.5
Yes
2 1
0
2 1
0
1 �7
3
1 2
3
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.5 I 1
1.5
0.5 + 1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

ETC LDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3j2- l2 d/ S Project /Site: U/ff cC
_ cr"ML1
Evaluator: 11V11 4 8-P1°1 County: A.'a (e.�
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent , S Stream Date pn4vUo&LcIrcIe one)
ifa 19 or perennial if >_ 30` J Ephemera ntermittent Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10 )
Absent
18• Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
dD
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
I 0
15. Active /relict floodplain
I 0
6. Depositional bars or benches
I 0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
I 0
9. Grade control
I 0
10. Natural valley
I 0 1
11. Second or greater order channel
No 1 00
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = S, )
12. Presence of Baseflow,
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
I
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16, Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = ,�, )
0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
Q
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1.5
122. Fish
1.5
0.5 1
23. Crayfish
0.5 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
( t'0)
26. Wetland plants in streambed
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.,
Notes:
I
Sketch:
Weak
1
0
1
tD
d
0.5
40
',k S
Latitude: 5S. 30 �-'u S
Longitude: * u. 112 g(-.
Other d
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate
2
2
P►:
2
2
2
2
1
i
Yes = 3
Strong
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1
'2 3
1 2 3
1 0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
Yes <3
2 1 I
0
2 1 I
0
1 2
3
1 2
3
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
0.5 1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

�f� 6
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP13 — Perennial RPW Stream A6
l e , STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: UNC Charlotte 2. Evaluator's Name: AVH & BJM
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/2/2015 4. Time of Evaluation: 15:00 nm
5. Name of Stream: Perennial Stream A6 6. River Basin: Yadkin (HUC #: 03040105)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: annrox. 20 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 7721f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located at UNCC Camous in Charlotte, North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.308168% W80.728624'
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: clear, sunnv. mid 60s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 70'. clear. sunnv
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 (1 -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 019. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (D NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10% Residential 70 % Commercial _% Industrial 80_% Agricultural
20% Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other l )
21. Bankfull Width: 3 -6' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
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 /�k l°"ll"� Date 3/2/15
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 malce 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
SCP13 - Perennial RPW Stream A6
..;' _ `C®RE'GI,f{NjP�OIN'T,R'ANGE {.. .
•gSC OREd
�Eresenee of flow > %persistent pools in stream
:1 0 =`5 0 =4 0` -5 3
j
(no" "low or,satiiiaiion = 0; sirong.flow = max-,points)
Evidence•of pasthuman alteration
2 0 =`6 0 —'S 0 -5 2
(extensive alteration:- :O;;no,,alteration =max points).
:Rip rian zone
a
e 3 :0 =6 0 —�4- 0 -5 3
no.,buffer_ 70;•contiguous; Wide,biiffer, = max points) • _
�_.,
Ev if eiiceiof nutrieni or
4 ,I cemical'discharges
I I —4
t ) 0 0 4 I 2
: ,(ezfensiye,discharges ='.O;-no
5 Grouridwater°dRehar a 0= 3, 0= 4 0— 4 3
z
no disctiairge -10 svrIngs, seep's;:wetlands,:etc: ,inax points)
P`resence;of:adjacent tlo'odplain'
9 " 4 ° , I '0 —:2 I 0
. rio flo6dplain,. =:0 -extensive ,'flobdplAm = '.max•points)
i -Entren fiient /•floodplain access
P=i 0 =5 0 =4= 0 -2 0
(deeply eritrencfied -:0; frequent flooding: = ibA"dii ts) I I -
Presence,ofadjacent wetlands
g j0'— 6' 0-4 0 —2 0
_ ;(n6 wetlanils�=°O'-lar> e- adjacent •wetlands = .'maic'j% t's) � `-
_ Channel sinuosity
0 —,�5 0, : _4 0= 3 2
(extensive,chaiinetization = 0; natural meander. = m`ax,poirits)
�' Sediment inpuf °
- � �0 — 5 0 —•4 � 0 —•4 � 3
(ezte'risive deposition =,0; �little•or no.sediment = niax-points)
1' I Size' -& dive�si of cliannel;bed su6strafe _ Y.<
- ,0 4 3
Y
'(fne �honiQbnod§ v0;_lafg6i di "verse ,sizes,= max points)
M 'Evidence of c} anho incision'or widening
12 .0 =5 0 -4 0 =e5 2
yi :(deeply'incised = �0;'stdble,bed' &' banks- = max°point9)
Preseuce.,of mAjo'r`liAnl 'fAilu_res
13 _ 0,5 0 —r5 0 —.3 3
( (se'vere erosion = ;O;no_erosioristalile banks'- max =point §), -�
Root'deptl} and <derisify on`ti'ariks
14 0. 3 0 -.4 0 -5 3
{
1.'-
° : (n o°visible,roots = 0; dense :roots.throuphout =;max points) _
Iinpact`�by'agriculture`orhi esfock,production
15 0 - =5 0 = 4' .� 0 5- 4
- ( substantial ;impact' =0 ;no'•eVi8bnc'e = max.poinfs) I.
fresence'of riffle= pool /ripple p'ool:coinplexes'
16 I '(no riffles %ripples;or pools =_O;,: well - .developed' =:m`axspoirits) - ;I 6-5- I 0'= 6, 4
'itab1fai!compieAfy' _
�� p -6 0 6- �� 0�° 6. 3
Ee± ynitle'oinohaliitat =_0;' frequent,- varie'd.haliitats= niaxrpoinfsi'; ,
tanopy,:co°verage:ovec- stieanii ed
'18, I - A' =5 0 =3 0 —'S 4
.(no. shading vegetation =-O; con-tinuous,canopy, = -max- points) �- •
Sbrate e miedddness
• INA *' i '0-- 4 0
(deeply euded - ,.6, loo-- ie- s tructure =,max) —4 3
-
Presenee `of,stream . invertebrates
20 0 ='4 '0 —'S 2
j. ;( nog, evidence =)'0_ ;(common,,ntimerous,types =.maX.poi its);
�+ P:resprice of,amph'ibians
21 I 0; e4. le.. 0 =4 0 —`4 I 3
(no tvidenc "e.= :0;:c"'oinmon;.nuinerous types'= •max•poirits), _-
Preseiiee,offish` '
COI 22;'.I °il 0 _4 ,0 -4. 10 =r,4 l 0
(no ;,evidence= ; =common;'niimerous type`s maz points)
°,rEvdenc`e;of wildlife:use ,
aP4� -23 ti x 0, -6' 0 °5' �`,5, 2
(no'evidenee =- O- ,dbun " "daii't!evideiice =';max poiritsi,
TWtalAPointsPos §i_tile
. >�- _- —._ -- ��_. �- `�'_- _ ..�- .- .mss =— == �_ -• - - -_ .�.� —__ .__ - -_ °- ��
• T,OT' `� S;CO+ !; .i(al'so�enfer °ori firstpage)' 54
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastfrn Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjectiSite: I%A"'O 6� t 5 ((l_ l^�P �i'¢`�City/County: / /�G��t"�`Y` Sampling Date: P-/Z/ ZQ`S
Applicant/Owner: 1%yL C C.1 61 rL.. State: Sampling Point: p P 4f -
Investigator(s): %Vtt 4. 1 ;D M Section, Township, Range: 4C )""164)t
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): W1.0 Local relief (concave, convex, none):. ^ do-C Slope ( %): Z nl o
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): AZ- R� �� Lat: 3 �. 0 b b Long: .r �V . � 5 72-12 Datum: NAr0 �
Soil Map Unit Name: /61tgCC,, 6 S1,LrrS NWI classification: /f/ /4
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IL No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes UD No
Are Vegetation ; Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No= Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes t__J No © within a Wetland? Yes = No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No U
Remarks.
Po;�� iS sipaz�..'vC
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum or one is reauired: check all that aooly)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
=Surface
Water (Al) =True Aquatic Plants (814)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
=High
Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
IDDrainage Patterns (B10)
=Saturation
(A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03)
=Moss Trim Lines (B16)
=Water
Marks-(B1) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment
Deposits (B2) =Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C6)
=Drift
Deposits (133) =Thin Muck Surface (C7)
=Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
F---]Algal
Mat or Crust (B4) =Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron
Deposits (BS)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation
Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
=Shallow Aquitard (133)
=Water-
Stained Leaves (B9)
=Mlcrotopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic
Fauna (B13)
=FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes= NoF_71 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes= Nor V—] Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes= No' Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No
(includes caplliaiy Print
Describe Recorded Da a (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec lons), if available:
Remarks:
/V'"O, ly, u t �®, �� 6 S ' .d A'a oh -1,4 cb C� f
US Army Corps of. Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover
1. /_ ( "r +hGY J
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Saolino Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. /7 ii"1^�i fay (ohm
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Slratunj (Plot size: )
1. .�r I'Lx a o�d► �,1e5
2. Z-O n1 CC X0. i �+ /"A- CA,
3. I u
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Iota] Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
0 0 °fJ of �k. d��� ^��
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
D P
plants.
Sampling Point:
T
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
S eciesl Status
Number of Dominant Species
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG:
(A)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Total Number of Dominant S
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Percent of Dominant Species
166
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: a
{A/B)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Prevalence Index worksheet:
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multtoly
bv:
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
OBL species x 1 =
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
FACW species x 2 =
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
FAC species x 3 =
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
FACU species x4=
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
UPL species x5=
' o Y
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
= Iota] Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
0 0 °fJ of �k. d��� ^��
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
- Dominance Test is >50%
03 - Prevalence Index Is 53.01
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
OProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
U F��
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
r (? 1
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Total Cover
' o Y
= Iota] Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
0 0 °fJ of �k. d��� ^��
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 1)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
finches) Color.(moistl_ % Colbr fmolsl) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
/_�S lU9�e 3 /�r loo low
lS°17 1. S eVj rua t 1, 'r
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soft Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
f--]Depleted Matrix (F3)
= Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136,147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) '
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
]Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
QRedox Depressions (178)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
[iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, -
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
welland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
RestrJctive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Ac p1tsie,%} -,,P-c {oar S)`� Z
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: I' '1�6 L-�O94J t%pri'^Ibltyfcounty: / "b` Z Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: 11N& CA- Y 1,-+* te:
A[ Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): AV1+ & � Section, Township, Range: C h4.Y
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): it iY� Local relief (concave, convex, none : _ /5 0F -ep Slope ( %): 6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):_ X14 r21' / 5 6 Let: S- 3 a 9 13 2 Long: r$�. –4 3 ky7 $ 1 � Datum: WA p S ,1 '
Soil Map Unit Name: / (O'.44"N % , 0 S Ge r { NWI classification:
Are climatic ( hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _,/ No (IF no, explain to Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No =
Are Vegetation ; Sol) , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No= Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= within a Wetland? Yes � No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No =
Remarks: Tk c4
HYDROLOGY
Watiand Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouiredl
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Surface Water (Al)
[::]True Aquatic Plants (B14)
=3parsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
&Z]Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
=Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) [=Moss Trim Lines (B16)
=Water
Marks (Bt)
®Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment
Deposits (132)
=Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift
Deposits (B3)
=Thin Muck Surface (C7)
=Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal
Mat or Crust (64)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1)
=Iron
Deposits (B5)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation
Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
=Shallow Aquilard (D3)
=Water-
Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic
Fauna (B13)
=FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
�� Y/!
Yes No= Depth (inches): J
Water Table Present?
— /t
Yes No=] Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
Yes[M NoQ Depth (inches): U_ 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes UZI No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec ions), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: ,D P 1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. t7 _ ,),�r� ^ Y� � Number of Dominant Species
1� That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: T (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 7- (B)
4.
5 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: /6 b (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
Saolina Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
2.
3.
v
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jr = Total Cover
Total % Cover of: MUIIIDIV bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species X5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
[Ell -Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation
FU12 - Dominance Test is >500/6
=3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
=Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
60 �_
�F�'tv
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
- 6- 40131
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, Including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
it (1 m) in height.
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
/oo -) - op 4 t)-r_ 014- ke.,f
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
vG� �t � s F19 6w o�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W 1 !
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color moist % Color (moist) % Type, Loc` Texture Remarks
V-Z 7z. 5 Y 3/,; 160 c UY I-�
Z-20 2, 5 24 1 O c /--Y /0A m,
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
=Histosol (Al)
= Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL =Pore Lining. M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2
cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (88) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
=Loamy Gloyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
®Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
/r,dr ,(r-+" 7'mI AlA.0
X 311 p wk-V4
Hydric Soil Present? Yes=✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

�QC par,�v,- �.�t -t• �oY Stec. Z.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: 016C tKim S �p.�i /Mfr( f City/County: / /� C144- t �' Sampling Date: 3f Z/ 2f7�s
Applicant/Owner: 101/c 3,W - State: yL Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Avf°�' Section, e" o 1 K
S lion, Township, Range; ��
Landform hilislo s, terrace, etc.: °
l P ) � �Y� Local relief (concave, convex, none � o^� Slope ( %): () ^ Z
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): �&'V • 17& Lai 3 S. 30 96 5 L Long: — CO. U 7-34 75 1 Datum: A14143
Soil Map Unit Name: A1i3,, ,C`n (ataa , 0-?-% dlowes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No (if no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes= No
Are Vegetation ; Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes®
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
No= � Is the Sampled Area
No F7 within a Wetland?
No i r v i
i� vyaeuc--OA4�L� Y t
Yes = No 59
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is that
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
reouired: check all aooly)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14)
E=kparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High
Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
[Drainage Patterns (B10)
=Saturation
(A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (816)
=Water
Marks (B1) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment
Deposits (82) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) =Crayflsh Burrows (C8)
=Drift
Deposits (63) =Thin Muck Surface (C7)
[Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal
Mat or Crust (134) =Other (Explain in Remarks)
[Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron
Deposits (135)
geomorphic Position (02)
=Inundation
Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
[Shallow Aqullard (133)
=Water-
Stained Leaves (89)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic
Fauna (B13)
=FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes= No Depth Depth (inches): `
Water Table Present? Yes= No Depth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes= N.E—V 1 Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology - Present? Yes= No
(Includes capillary fringqe)
Describe
Recorded Dala (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections),
if available: -
Remarks:
N,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: D 10 -L
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastem Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. �j� �t.•l4 n "�
% Cover Species? Status
/ 1!
N ber of Dominant
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
f UG
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1 B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
Saolino Stratum (Plot size:
)
OBL species- x 1 =
1.
FACW species x2=
2.
FAC species x 3 =
3.
FACU species x 4 =
4.
UPL species X5=
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
=Total Cover
Q 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
La►X 1-k
)
1. cs
Z 0/4
®2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
2,
03 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' .
3.
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
=Problematic
Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5
6.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
7
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Herb Slraturrl (Plot size: )
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
1. F� s �. S�v•
y
�9 d /
/
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 J" 6 C-5 e10*S(-
5 �- /�G�/
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
q
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 If (6 m) or more in height and less
5
than 3 In. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) In height.
8
g
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, Including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11.
It (1 m) In height.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
/ J = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
Present? Yes= No=
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastem Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: /—) 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) !, % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
V`Z iU7/e.W ldU to-..n
Z. -1 _31 S YR ejq !0b Sr-t c 1 .
'Type, C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL =Pore Lininq, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
=Hislosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
= Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvaiue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
= Redox Dark Surface (176)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (177)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
= Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches):
Remarks:
A-0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No
�'V ' �c t�.�C f't rGf T ;(o y �, Ye
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

r`C ®aCSG- .-�^a►�,� fly-' .St�ZS 3 A t
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project /Site: U�L� C s Slay r~'1Qa`r *City /County: / � - ��Jy Sampling Date: 3�212Ur!S
Applicant/Owner: VV< < V W -fC State: A� Sampling Point: P -3
Investigator(s): M111- Q 5J AA Section, Township, Range: C hca 101.16
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): 4en4 re- Local relieff ncave, convex, none): fn 5^t Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): J"/4 -'A 136 Lat:.3 5. 3 v (1- . - Long: ° 150. -� M2;f- +j Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Aton 4C'e— 10`,—+.. 0— 2- V. J NWI classification: /Il // '
Are climatic t hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V/ No (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Clrcumstances" present? Yes VJNo =
Are Vegetation ; Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
Remarks:
The. dc, 4v. rn --4
HYDROLOGY
No= is the Sampled Area
No= within a Wetland?
No=
Yes 7l No=
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired: check all that aoolv)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
rV1SurfA.e
Water (Al) True Aquatic Plants (814)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) mOxidized Rhlzospheres on Living
Roots (C3) MMoss Trim Lines (816)
=Water
Marks (131) ®Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment
Deposits (82) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) =Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift
Deposits (133) =Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal
=Iron
Mat or Crust (134) =Other (Explain in Remarks)
Deposits
[Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(B5)
=Geomorphic Position (02)
=Inundation
Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
=Shallow Aquilard (D3)
=Water-
Stained Leaves (B9)
[Microtopographic Relief (04)
[—:]Aquatic
Fauna (1313)
=FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes® No[ Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes® No= Depth (inches): Q —�
Saturation Present? Yes® No= Depth (inches): (�� i'L /7
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesEO No=
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec
ions), if available:
Remarks:
l��tG�.- (-,�3j `l�° 6 1l`�fi��ol �'d�•o %c�c� P ��- Jlit,�.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 1-'p3
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant indicator
Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
OBL species x 1 =
1. JCS ti S
�a !,-S
A?t n/) tk+f �g
' p f
Ai;
Z �-r
�
�q
rJ�
�-
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC:
[�
i (A)
2. fk
3. L T wry C%n*. Y S p 6C �(�q
Z
/"��
/F°�L
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
UPL species x5=
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
5
7
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Percent of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
Hydrophytio Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
=1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
lJ (A/B)
6.
2.
Q3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
3.
7
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
Saolina Stratum (Plot size: )
OBL species x 1 =
1.
FACW species x2=
2•
FAC species x3=
3.
FACU species x 4 =
4.
UPL species x5=
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytio Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
=1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1,
t v t2 - Dominance Test is >50%
2.
Q3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
3.
Q4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
B.
7
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
1 • S �`' t �e +.tc �° fi'nr1, �° 1 ' S
�,q
_ ! _ 14(
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more In height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger In diameter at breast height (DBH).
3. '
4.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more In height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
7
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
g
Herb - AII herbaceous (non - woody) plants, Including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11.
ft (1 m) in height.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
\
\�
3.
4
Hydrophyti y�
5
Vegetation `�"
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the del
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
v_-Y" 1v y4` 513 9S
3- /S¢ 2.5q Wz— -Y&-
Sampling Point: I ✓I' J
ith needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
yi6 5 G PG ti�--
�.
'Type: C= Concentration. D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL =Pore Llninq, M= Malrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils':
=Histosol
(Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=
Hislic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
HBlack
Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
®Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
= Redox Dark Surface (F6)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
= Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (64)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restdctive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
InChC4_40t S {ofi ),Id riG
d pilf f ye jc- +
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos, Administrator
Governor pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
March 31, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements, Charlotte, CWS 2015 -3551, Mecklenburg County,
ER 15 -0561
Dear Ms. Harjuniemi:
Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2015, 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
environmental .reviewO,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
69*1Ramona M. Bartos
Location 109 Bast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone/ Fax- (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

A�
V
NA -
CDENi
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat hflcCory Bra G osW Donald R. van der vaart
GovernDr Dicer Secretary
NCNHDE -154
April 2, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
aliisa @cws- inc.net
RE: UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements; 2015 -3551
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed areas within the proposed project boundary submitted
with your request for information. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences'
table and map.
Also attached is a table summarizing rare species and natural communities that have been documented
within a one -mile radius of the project boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural
heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is included for
reference. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that
we may update our records. Tables of natural areas and conservation /managed area within a one -mile
radius, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NC Natural Heritage Program data may not be redistributed without permission from the NCNHP.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence
if a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or an occurrence of a Federally -
listed species is documented within or near the project area.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact Allison Schwarz Weakley at all ison.weaklevna ncdenr.00v or
919.707.8629.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Project No. 2015 -3551
April 2, 2015
NCNHDE -154
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name Last
Element
Accuracy Federal
State
Group
Observation
Occurrence
Status
Status
Date
Status
Vascular Plant
16266 Acmispon helleri
Carolina Birdfoot- trefoil 1970 -08 -25
Historical
3 -Medium Species of
Special
Concern
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant
24623 Symphyotrichum
Georgia Aster 2007
Current
3 - Medium Candidate
Threatened
georgianum
No Documented Natural Areas For This Site
No Documented Managed Areas For This Site
Global State
Rank Rank
G3 S3
G3 S3
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at www ncnhp ora. Data query generated on April 2, 2015; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2014. Please resubmit your information request if more than
one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Project No. 2015 -3551
April 2, 2015
NCNHDE -154
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name Last
Element
Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation
Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
1977 -03 -19
Date
Status
Carex projecta
Necklace Sedge
1972 -05 -30
Vascular Plant
Freshwater 14825 Villosa vaughaniana
Carolina Creekshell 1993 -04 -22
Current
3 - Medium Species of
Endangered
G2
S2
Bivalve
1800S
Vascular Plant
Concern
Pseudognaphalium helleriHeller's Rabbit - Tobacco
1958 -10 -02
Vascular Plant
Vascular Plant 6807 Acmispon helleri
Carolina Birdfoot - trefoil 1981 -09 -04
Historical
4 - Low Species of
Special
G3
S3
Vascular Plant 16266 Acmispon helleri
Carolina Birdfoot - trefoil 1970 -08 -25
Vascular Plant
2047
Anemone berlandieri
Southern Anemone
1980
Vascular Plant
11509
Anemone caroliniana
Prairie Anemone
2012
Vascular Plant
9469
Cardamine dissecta
Dissected Toothwort
1977 -03 -19
Vascular Plant
19429
Carex projecta
Necklace Sedge
1972 -05 -30
Vascular Plant
7858
Cirsium carolinianum
Carolina Thistle
1970 -09 -22
Vascular Plant
13743
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
1800S
Vascular Plant
15457
Pseudognaphalium helleriHeller's Rabbit - Tobacco
1958 -10 -02
Vascular Plant
6044
Pseudognaphalium helleriHeller's Rabbit - Tobacco
1958 -10 -02
Vascular Plant
24623
Symphyotrichum
Georgia Aster
2007
georgianum
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County
Page 3 of 5
Collective Rating
Owner Type
Local Government
Concern
Concern
Vulnerable
Historical
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G3
S3
Concern
Concern
Vulnerable
Historical
3 - Medium
- --
Endangered
G4?
S2
Current
2 - High
- --
Endangered
G5
S1
Historical
4 - Low
- --
Special
G4?
S2
Concern
Vulnerable
Historical
4 - Low
- --
Significantly
G5
S1
Rare Peripheral
Historical
3 - Medium
- --
Endangered
G5
S2
Historical
5 - Very
Species of
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
Concern
Historical
3 - Medium
- --
Significantly
G3G4
S3
Rare Peripheral
Historical
3 - Medium
- --
Significantly
G3G4
S3
Rare Peripheral
Current
3 - Medium
Candidate
Threatened
G3
S3
Collective Rating
Owner Type
Local Government

Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Easement NC DENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at www.ncnho.ora. Data query generated on April 2, 2015; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2014. Please resubmit your information request if more than
one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE -154: UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Ttlm ." 1 '.'•t .
-• I WN ?r a ri ` ., ... rU.isrisv�i h�PPw1 G <. �a '�i
Wq S.Ir - fs 'MWS �, yu
w,`R �llralrsVr `lYn -n vr3` UNtf !� $ V'F
Ne•Ile
Ye 4� 4 C
NVe1 re4Y.Gn,A Re.
14YXne Y _
/,. µys'
Cmb F n:
� T
OuSi,Y rY
Ike
rcr ' �XP� CA",
�
u
< t �.:�� . ,.•I r' a. . M' 'i'n,PSm loon .vw<.
April 2, 2015 1:25,617
Project Boundary o \ 02 \ 0.4 0.8 .
Buffered Project Boundary o 0.35 0.7 1.4 km
Souce& Ead, HERE. D@L—s, TomTom, IMamep, YKroment P Corp.,
QManaged Area (MAREA) GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN. G-B. -. IGN. Kedaa. NL,
Page 5 of 5

11.
j
*Aid, Northern Long-Eared Bat Interim 4(d) Rule
�4N 9. fig. `"• "'•` White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties /Districts
50
Miles
1 .5W
�kh
�i
PrA
Map Created May 28, 2015
Counties /Districts with WNS /Pd
Infected Hibernacula
White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone
Per Interim 4(d) Rule
U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive
counties /districts (Data as of 05/28/15,
additional updates expected)
Northern Long -Eared Bat Range
(As of 0 4/3 012 0 1 5)
Northern Long -Eared Bat range and WNS Buffer
Zone subject to change as new data are collected.
WNS = White -Nose Syndrome
Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans; the
fungus that causes WNS
Coordinate System: WNS Counties /Districts Data Provided By:
North America Equidistant Conic Pennsylvania Game Commission
Datum: North American 1983 Basemap Data: USGS

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 6/18/2015
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Several Locations on UNC Charlotte Main Campus
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT
DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Lat.: 35.303697 ° N, Long.: 80.7351280 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83
Name of nearest waterbody: Toby Creek and UTs to Toby Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 6439 linear feet of stream, 2.44 acre of pond
Cowardin Class: R2SB13, R4SB3, L1 UB2
Stream Flow: Perennial, Intermittent, N/A
Wetlands: 0.519 acre
Cowardin Class: PF01 B, PEM1
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): January 28, 2014, Davis Lake, March 2, 2015
Additional Sites

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:
USGS Map, Current Soils Map, Topographic Map.
® 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, Harrisburg, NC, dated 1996.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Mecklenburg County Soil Survey.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps: FEMA Firm No.3710458700K.
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of
1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Mecklenburg County, dated 2009.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs, dated May 2014 & March
2015
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional
determinations.
Z71- C.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
6/18/2015
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)

Site
Amount of
Cowardian
Latitude
Longitude
Number
Resource
Resource in
Class
Stream A
I N35.303697°
W80 735128°
R2SB13
Stream B
I N35.303697°
W80.735128°
R4SB3
Wetland AA
I N35.303697°
W80.735128°
PF01B
Wetland BB
I N35.303697°
W80735128°
PF01B
Pond A
I N35 303697°
W80.735128°
L1 UB2
Stream Al
N35 303697°
W80 735128°
R4SB3,
82 linear feet
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
2,354 linear feet
R5SB3
Stream A2
I N35.303697°
W80 735128°
R4SB3
Stream B2
I N35 303697°
I W80.735128°
R4SB3
Stream C2
N35.303697°
I W80.735128°
R4SB3
AA2 I
N35.303697°
I W80.735128°
I PEM1
Stream A3 I
N35 303697°
I W80 735128°
I R4SB3
Stream B3 I
N35 303697°
I W80.735128°
I R4SB3
Stream C3
N35.303697°
W80 735128°
I R5SB3
Stream D3 I
N35 303697°
I W80 735128°
R4SB3
Stream E3 I
N35.303697°
I W80.735128°
R4SB3
Stream F3 I
N35.303697°
I W80.735128°
I R4SB3
Wetland AA3
N35.303697-
I W80 735128°
I PFO1 B
Wetland BB3
N35.303697°
I W80.735128-
I PFO1 B
Stream A4
N35.303697°
W80 735128°
R4SB3,
R5SB3
Wetland AM
N35.303697°
W80.735128°
I PF01 B
Pond A4
N35 303697°
I W80.735128°
I L1UB2
Stream A5
N35 303697°
I W80 735128°
I R5SB3
Stream 65 I
N35.303697°
W80.735128°
I R4SB3
Stream A6 I
N35.303697°
I W80.735128°
R5SB3
9
Estimated
Amount of
Class of Aquatic
Aquatic
Resource
Resource in
Review Area
573 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
247 linear feet
Non - section 10 - non -tidal I
0 092 acre
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
0.015 acre
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
0.68 acre
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
493 linear feet
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
87 linear feet I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
164 linear feet I
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
49 linear feet I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
0 119 acre I
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
106 linear feet I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
82 linear feet
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
2,354 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
629 linear feet I
Non- section 10 - non -tidal
69 linear feet I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
10 linear feet I
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
0.132 acre I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
0 139 acre I
Non- section 10 - non -tidal
221 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
0.009 acre
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
1.76 acre
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
494 linear feet I
Non - section 10 - non -tidal
36 linear feet I
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
772 linear feet
Non- section 10 - non -tidal

UNCC Davis Lake Site
404 Section Individual Permit
June 18, 2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph A0: Davis Lake. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
Photograph B0: Davis Lake.View of Perennial RPW Stream A at pipe outfall, facing upstream.

o v,
N M
00 �_
� O
C N
7 O
�z
d
.o
L
3
U
�E
d
a
d_
Y
a�
Vl M1
CQ O
r
U�
zo
OD
Lv
cd
Q
0
U
s
cd
O
O
,i
as
L
3
0
bA
O
U
w
a3
N
L
C/]
N
O
N
N
4-.
O
3
a�
x
cz
D
0
D
a
c�
O
O
a

o
N M
� O
O N
� O
�z
u
d
�o
L
v
d
Y
R
rl
h
R
A
U
U
z
3
U
L
a
�a
C
C
O
.0
a�
0
e
3
oA
c
U
Q
Q
U
3
0
3
a�
N
.�C
N
co
0
L1.
co
b4
O
0
a
3
0
C
U
W
m
.D
C
C�
5
�o
N
N
N
CC
0
Li.
C
CL
C�
L
O
0
a.
M

UNCC Davis Lake Site June 18, 2015
404 Section Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph G0: Davis Lake. View of Pond A (Davis Lake), facing northwest.
Photograph H0: Davis Lake.View Pond A (Davis Lake), facing southeast.

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph A. View of Seasonal RPW Stream A 1, facing upstream.
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream A1, facing downstream.

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph C. View of ephemeral conveyance on Site 1, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of Seasonal RPW Stream A2, facing downstream.

ITNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph E. View of Seasonal RPW Stream B2, facing upstream.
Photograph F. View of Seasonal RPW Stream C2, facing upstream.

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Individual Permit
June 18, 2015
CWS Protect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph G. View of Wetland AA2, facing south.
Photograph H. View of Perennial RPW C3, facing upstream.
4

IINCC Campus Storm Water Improvements
Individual Permit
3une18,2015
CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph I. View of Seasonal RPW Stream D3, facing upstream.
Photograph J. View of Seasonal RPW Stream E2, facing upstream.
5

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph K. View of Seasonal RPW Stream F3, facing upstream.
Photograph L. View of Wetland AA3, facing southwest.

i
v;
o �n
N M
� O
C N
7 O
>z
.o
L
a
0
e
E
0
L
a
E
L
W
3
8
L
O
V�
Vl
7 L
cd
�a
ea
U o
U
U .?
z�
0
on
V
M
TS
C
y
3
O
3
F
t
o.
on
0
3
0
ao
Y_
coo
C
O
v
U
c�
N
O
r
L
a�
CL
v
0
3
ii
Cz
L
on
0
0
,i
CL.
r-

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June l8, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proieet No. 2015 -3551
Photograph O. View of Seasonal RPW A4, facing downstream.
Photograph P. View Perennial RPW A4 facing downstream.

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph Q. View Wetland AA4 facing southeast
Photograph R. View Pond A4 facing southwest.

o v,
N M
� O
C N
7 O
�z
d
.o
L
0.
h
e
d
E
0
L
C
E
d
E
L
O
E
J L
a0.w
E
R
U o
U�
U
z�
3
0
bD
c
�U
4�
N
U
0
U
N
N
n.
0
3
a�
V)
t
Q
ct
0
O
O
0.
�%m
cd
a�
c�.
nu
U
Q
3
a
Ri
C
N
L,
U
a
0
3
a�
i
CL
c�
O
O
a
C

UNCC Campus Storm Water Improvements June 18, 2015
Individual Permit CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3551
Photograph U. View of Seasonal RPW B5, facing upstream.
Photograph V. View of ephemeral conveyance, facing northeast.