20161145 Ver 1_EB-5011_Bearskin_Creek_401_Application_20161031_20161121

Kimley>>>Horn
October 31, 2016
Ms.Donna Hood
NC Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Nationwide Permif 14 Applicafion — City of Monroe
Bearskin Creek Greenway Project, Union County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Hood:
On behalf of the City of Monroe, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached application for authorization
under Water Quality Certification No. 3886 for the above referenced project. The City of Monroe
proposes to construct a multi-use greenway path along Bearskin Creek beginning in Dickerson Park
near Icemorlee Street and ending near the intersection of NC 207 and Allan Street. Kimley-Horn
investigated the project corridor on October 9, 2014 and identified one jurisdictional wetland (W1) and
two perennial streams (Bearskin Creek and Stream S3).
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was issued for the corridor on February 3, 2015. Crystal
Amschler of the USACE concurred that the project can proceed as a non-reporting project under
NWP 14 on August 24, 2015. An attachment of these determinations has been included for your
reference.
Impacts to jurisdictional features have been minimized to the greatest extent practical, and a pre-
constructed pedestrian bridge will be used to avoid stream impacts where crossings are necessary.
Minor stream impacts wiil result from the proposed project associated with outlet protection near
stormwater discharges, but overall the project will improve protection and public appreciation for
these environinentally sensitive areas throughout the corridor.
To assist in your review, the following information is included as part of the application:
• PCN Application Form • Stream and Wetland Data Forms
• Figures
• Signed Preliminary JD
• Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Approval
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $240
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this Water Quality
Certification application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-678-4155 or
Jason. [e-mail].
Sincerely,
� ���� �
Jason Hartshorn, PWS
Environmental Scientist

O�Ok W ATFRQG
� �
> .�
o ,c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. A licant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ❑ Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes � No � Yes ❑ No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � Yes � No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: EB-5011 - Bearskin Creek Greenway
2b. County: Union County
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Monroe
2d. Subdivision name: n/a
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state EB 5011
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Monroe
3b. Deed Book and Page No. n/a
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Lisa Stiwinter, Director of Planning
applicable):
3d. Street address: 300 W. Crowell Street
3e. City, state, zip: Monroe, NC 28112
3f. Telephone no.: 704-282-4569
3g. Fax no.: n/a
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: � Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Jason Hartshorn
5b. Business name Kimley-Horn
(if applicable):
5c. Street address: 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27601
5e. Telephone no.: 919-677-2000
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): n/a (lineartransportation easement)
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 34.986922 Longitude: - 80.561621
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 3.43 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to gearskin Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site is located within a developed area of Monroe, located within larger areas of residential, commercial, and
industrial development. The project corridor is located mostly within existing parks, open spaces, and along roadway
rights-of-way.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.05 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
319 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed project will construct a 10-foot wide multiuse greenway/bikeway path spanning 1.6 miles between
Icemorlee Street and NC highway 207 (Skyway Drive). The greenway path will provide a safe, multi-purpose
transportation route along Bearskin Creek connecting multiple residential areas, community parks, and recreational
centers while also providing outdoor and alternative transportation options for the residents of Monroe.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project will consist of 1.6 miles of 10-foot wide paved greenway path with 2-foot gravel shoulders. Typical
roadway construction equipment will be utilized including cranes, trackhoes, backhoes, graders, dump trucks, bulldozers,
and pavers.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: The USACE issued a preliminary JD for the � Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project on 2/3/2015 (USACE AID: 2014-01908), and
confirmed that the project can proceed as a non-reporting
project under Nationwide Permit 14 on 8/24/2015.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? � Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn
Name (if known): Jason Hartshorn Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The USACE issued a preliminary JD for the project on 2/3/2015 (USACE AID: 2014-01908), and confirmed that the
project can proceed as a non-reporting project under Nationwide Permit 14 on 8/24/2015.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
The USACE confirmed that the project can proceed as a non-reporting project under Nationwide Permit 14 on 8/24/2015.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
6b. If yes, explain.
n/a
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands � Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora T
W 1❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0
2h. Comments: No wetland impacts will result from the proposed project.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type ofjurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 � P❑ T Outlet Protection gearskin Creek � PER � Corps 20' 33
(Left Bank Only) ❑ INT ❑ DWQ
S2 � P❑ T Outlet Protection gearskin Creek � PER � Corps 20' 24
(Left Bank Only) ❑ INT ❑ DWQ
S3 � P❑ T Outlet Protection gearskin Creek � PER � Corps 20' 18
(Left Bank Only) ❑ INT ❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 75 LF
3i. Comments: All of the proposed stream impacts would result from the placement of riprap for the purposes of outlet
protection in small areas along of the left bank of Bearskin Creek. The placement of riprap for outlet protection will help ensure
that stormwater discharge will enter the creek at non-erosive velocities and will provide better bank stabilization along
Bearskin Creek helping to reduce erosional hazards and minimizing water quality issues downstream of the project area.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total 0
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes � No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): n/a
5k. Method of construction: n/a
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico � Other: Yadkin
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Tem ora T im act re uired?
B1 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts 0 0
6i. Comments: No protected riparian buffers would be impacted as a result of the proposed project.
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to streams in the project corridor have been avoided and minimized to the extent practical. Impacts were avoided
throughout the the corridor by locating the greenway alignment along the left bank of Bearskin Creek in areas that are
presently maintained and historically disturbed and by utilizing existing roadway crossings/bridges over Bearskin Creek to limit
new crossings of the creek. The location of the alignment limits new clearing of forested riparian zones along the creek, and
the only permanent stream impacts resulting from the project are associated with outlet protection at three stormwater
conveyances to Bearskin Creek. The outlet protection will stabilize the bank of Bearskin Creek and ensure that stormwater
discharge is at non-erosive velocties before discharging to Bearskin Creek. The single new stream crossing over Bearskin
Creek has been designed to be a perpendicular crossing of the stream to further minimize impacts to the stream and riparian
corridor. The new pedestrian bridge will be an elevated crossing that entirely spans the creek avoiding stream impacts.
Impacts to wetlands were entirely avoided throughout the corridor by designing the greenway alignment to utilize uplands
throughout the corridor and shifting the alignment further away from Bearskin Creek at the western end of the project to avoid
the single floodplain wetland feature identified in the corridor.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to streams and wetlands within the corridor will be minimized to the extent practical throughout the construction
process by avoiding stream and wetland features wherever possible. Where feasible, staging and construction access routes
will be located in upland areas throughout the corridor. Tree protection fencing, silt fencing, and other standard Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and measures will be used throughout the construction process to minimize impacts to
downstream receiving waters and minimize runoff from the construction sites.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes � No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type n/a Quantity n/a
3c. Comments: n/a
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: n/a linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): n/a square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: n/a acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: n/a acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: n/a acres
4h. Comments: n/a
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes � No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
n/a
6h. Comments: n/a
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � Yes � No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes � No
Comments: n/a
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 25.9 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: All stormwater will be allowed to sheet
flow off the proposed path or it will be collected in existing conveyances.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
n/a
� Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project? Monroe
� Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes � No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ ORW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State � Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) � Yes ❑ No
Comments: A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion was approved for the project on
May 20, 2015 and documentation is attached.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � Yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project will not result in additional development. The greenway and sidewalk facilities proposed will serve
existing communities and connect existing public locations.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater will be generated from the poposed project.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or � Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
� Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database (updated April 2015), no known
occurrences of any federally threatened or endangered species are located in or within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Based on field reviews conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists, suitable habitat is not present within the project area for
Carolina heelsplitter. Pedestrian surveys were conducted for Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower, and no
individuals were identified in the project corridor. Suitable summer roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat is present
within the study area, and the USFWS was contacted for Section 7 consultation under the ESA.
The USFWS determined that the proposed project would have no effect on northern long eared bat, and concurred with
the no effect determinations for Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's sunflower, and Carolina heelsplitter on August 13, 2015
(letter attached).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes � No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper was reviewed on October 10, 2016. No essential fish habitat was found within
the project area or within the vicinity of the project.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The State Historic Preservation Office was contacted in regards to possible historic resource impacts as part of the PCE.
The proposed project is located in the vicinity of the Icemorelee Village District, which has been determined to be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, the Piedmont Buggy Factory (UN0833) is listed on
the National Register and occurs within the project vicinity. Due to the distance and trees separating the two properties
from the project, no effect to either historical resource is anticipated.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? � Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
A No-Rise Certification was approved by the City of Monroe's floodplain administrator on July 20, 2016.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panels 3702365425J and 3702365435J.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

FIGURE S

. ' � ,C" � � ��r:.'= ��� a���q�a I ��_ 11
.
� " � Sji ' , �'. _,' � ,� �C'_�. �. J
� , , �+. � ` -, - ����,� � ' � � —
r � � , - . r� � �� `.` _-�.�,�,� - - ` • 1
.
�' � `�'` � ,' �, � P'- '1'' �' �� • I,
,_.. !, j� •_ 1 • r,�rti � _ -- - . , � _ }
. rr- ' �a � '� . � • � �"l�,,: � ' ,- �- � � i'
• • � a , _ ,' . . �- j .
� ,-�' �` ' • � � � � 1� - r � -�
�'� ` ` ' � � i - !" '_ — �" r
•i �� � -� � r `, ',�,•� i - � ' �� � ~� � (
. � ,t f I . . , i � � � I
I.- ! i ��r fj'1 � ' - t•'- ; �,1 '1 t r ��I I
a •�_ 1 i
, �1 � ,t
� ' ,T `� ` '�• . ..��. '. •���, I _ , , . ' `a
1� � r �`�� ` �1 . i �
1 _ '� ,J �►Z� � •�` � ~ r � f 1 � �
"� ` � � • ' 1. �
� � •� � •,, r�'- �
.�p �• ` ,� �� � � - � •�ti `'` ' , � • � • � -� .
~� �i. 1 _ — f . � • t� �- - _ � � - �',� �= �
_ ♦ •. � • .. _Y \ f •
� . _ � ��., , � �, �
� � ,` •
� - r1 � ' � [� '•� \+ � f ^ � ' P �
i 1'`y � `, �� `.� . � � � 1
I • - � � � �� j � a -�-..��
L• . �' — — _ _ . � � • � • .
- � ' � .
�, � �� �. �
(- � . _ , , . �1 �� �,
i � � - i
•� - -- �, ►
. _ • _�_� �. � , � ,, ,
,' i `. ' - - . � * `�� -. �
_ ! � P � - -_ - . � - -, �� ;'-=3_ � � � ;
� ..+�� - t' �� � . - •� -� � �„� • � • �j .
s ,� � — � � - _ � _ '
.. .1 � � � � ' '- � �.� � -
�rti� � � i � � �
� � • � ' 1 , � • ` •�+ � �� . �i�r - • ` � . � '� � �� '' -'
1 � � �, �•� � , � - .
. � ' �-- •� _ ,.�
�► • ' • ', �' - ' ' - �
� �� ,r� � i . � -. t- a� , , � �.�
� _.r ' , ' • ��Y f , � , � � ��+ Legend
'�� . � ; , �I � `, , � � 1 _, _ ,
="~ �,� � � ` . + � - 4- � �t``t- '-- , - ' � Project Study Area
� . � � ,, . . ,�F R' S t?
' • �, - j � -
J � �� + i ' �'. _ _ _ i -- � . - : =
,� v � �; '��" 0 600 1,200
� ' . r' � • � � �� . � Feet
�
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map (Monroe Quad, 1988)
Bearskin Creek Greenway (TIP EB-5011)
eITY Union County, NC
`' Mo�rRo� October 2016
��i�o v �ir,�•y���.,

__ _'
Y�
it ��
F "
► � � � � '�
' "� Dickerson Pa'rk ' '
� ' , �Baseball rField � � �
p- � �..l. `��
�' . � • tr.'y ; "��
b �
�. �� �.� .:_
�f- � • � ti:,,
-w.+ [ '. . y.�!
— ~� .
[ - �
4 �
{ .�`�V�. . .
. �.. f . �� .
��� � �
��r„� jr : •���r ��fM1 ar:.a • .. , .� • � � '+�r .�... -.w .
� ', �� E,��' �'� �- — --. • , f, - � - � �� � �
� . � . ` � � . , � �. • � � i � - �!+��� � �r�� �
�� ' � / _ � �
• ,�ii' "'""� . F� ' " �/►��' •.� �'. ��R��' l�.
� ��� •�� �� p.� i
� '�� ` , � �'`* ` � � � � � '' . � ',,
� y �.
/ - _ �,.� f . . � t � ��
� � �, . ; . :' �` . � , � ' : r�'�,, .
�, � � '�r • _ � '�,,. • w h a�y � � �,• .` � 1
�. �• . a! � J�� �'I:�� • f ` � I� �. .«��. � �F. . � -i� I�
�� ,,..%�� � ���' �`y � � � a� . • ;�C' !�� ' �� �' Y � �r �r ��! -
�i r - " - . .-r •�r� �' ° * •�I
� ` � �'`� � � . 11�i • � �",�'�"�
� '� ,� S2
�� �'~ �
M -�
-�� '�
,r}
�.�:r. � ���� { . �.
� �
� � ,��. ^ 1
0
�
Legend
^M^- Streams
� Wetlands
� Project Study Area '
�
eiTv
`, OF
MONROE
��i�o v �ir,�•y���.,
�_�j � . , .r� � " ' �� �� - �!►� '�`. - p � :� ,�t�t .�►• ` •�
� �- _ f a «- � .� �.�-ta, - �, �+ e _ - ' �. �; r'� 4 '�'-.
� � .. . .�, �f ' ,r ' } t �'�� ,�. ,�. . t
� . . � -�.x-.. ,{ � � : , � ''�`� , �
. � `'" y •r � .M
� �� _��' fj�•r. . t.. � ' • � , ' �
� � � �. .
� . . -� •�1 r � _ �2 � , . •� - •
�� ��. � � ♦ . q� � r�.
r
i � ��.� 1 �' ! � 1
� • e ••�' � � 1 . �ifi. •� r \ // ,�� .,. � •i��n / 1 f � � �
� �� K � ' �� . ��<
• � � � -. �
i r.' Bea skii�-Creen , �w � ' ',,�s � ' �{''
.� �' , . .' : . •
j +�'. r � � � �� �
� ��'�` --'�'�'_ .YC-�_. .....__ } 5. • �'�• • •� •� • r . �
. '' r � ��� ,�� rr ~ � ` �� � • •• 1- •'
�r � r. . N .� � �, .j p�. ��c,.g 4 .:� . / � � �: �H�� � • • ' /'r�
�1i� ' �,.Qy,�� ��nF'i�"�. . fi_ �� �� � �
�� _ �. R'#•v� ,A„ a ��� ���� --� .,� 1.�r!'-.
' � �'' . ( i ,�, - � .
� . + � _ �� • � �A�
,�--'- � 1 �
�~ 'f ���L ••••�•.� � � ',r- f„ l��� , ��a � ,••'•••'•�
F�• � � • �' , ^ • _ +�' y � �. , '`� '
�Pr �� � r. �ar �r '' ' t � ♦.. .. .r �..+.� ...�I �
�""" -.� � *` �, �+l.�, ���:'� �;' -- _ �� M' .�, .,,�r
�•; �` �,' ' .
_ _ .�� , �c . . �"- � z,
t�.� e � � ,�� i r+� � � _� , •
> � • �� � � � . R • �f � ���(I-�.
�� ��, R - � �,� :���-• �.. �� �� �r r �` : �� �
h *',,@;��. _ � � � ! � �'b � ` ! . � �
550 1 100 � �" � _ '� - � � .---.. . — �- ra
� '-;'• F �, � % -, r'�a, _�.r►,-, �-wt�+� � � ` � � �� � r �- �
Feet � -�` •+�" �� =' So� r�ce: Esn DigitalGlobe;},GeoE,y,e, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USD'A, USGS, AEX,
, • �� �. �' '+r� ' ; � Getmapping,,Aer��r�id�GN��G�P, swisstopo,randrthe G�IS User Community � �� � �
Figure 3: JD Features Map
Bearskin Creek Greenway
(TIP EB-5011)
Union County, NC
October 2016

� � _ � � �� _
�
� ��� �
. �
� ,.
�, , �
� � �
� � � � � �� � , �, ,_
�� n � � �.��
.
� . . �, �„
, � ,_
� � �
!��� ,
�LL �„ ; , . � �
. �`` � �, _ � .� , � � � ',� ��'
. - � : � f� � - -�..�, �; ,�+� � *
, e
� �
�
_ , .z . ,,,
� � . -�, _ .
, _ �" � • � �
_ � ..� - � _ .
, .
� `�'�`� _ - ��� ��' ��fi
� �W � �
. � ���� �
_ � - ,� ,�� �
. __
�h ���
�.
�.
� , � _ �
_T � �
� ,�
� .
�' �'� i� . � ,�
_� �, � �
-� -
. ��� . � -
� ���. � �._ � � � ' �
.
, _ _.
. _
_ i ���� .
� � ��� �� � ,
, � .
�
�
a
. � . _
.. � � . . _
. � -
_
�ti e — . - �,� �
��E� _ � ��� �
. . . �.F,. A, .
Le end HYDRIC SOIL TABLE
�i , ,��
g � � Map Unit Soil Unit Name Hydric
�� BaC Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No
Project Study Area ,�_ ,=.��.w:'�, Bu6 Badin-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes No
�� . BuC Badin-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes No
� 7�� �,4�� '� ChA Chewada silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Ind. -
F�'et ,� _ ,� " CnB Cid-Urban land complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes No
$ �' ` ''
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map (Union County,1996)
Bearskin Creek Greenway (TIP EB-5011)
eITY Union County, NC
`' Mo�rRo� October 2016
��i�o v �ir,�•y���.,

USACE PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2014-01908 County: Union U.S.G.S. Quad: Monroe
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Authorized Agent: Citv of Monroe
Mr. Brian Borne
Address: 300 West Crowell Street
Monroe, North Carolina 28112
Telephone Number: 704-282-5797
Properiy description:
Size (acres) 28 Nearest Town Monroe
Nearest Waterway Bearskin Creek River Basin Catawba
USGS HiJC 3040105 Coordinates N 34.987948 W-80.557335
Location description: The Bearskin Creek Greenwav proiect begins at Icemorlee Street and extends alon� Bearskin
Creek 1.6 miles east to end at Skvwav Drive in Monroe, Union Countv, North Carolina and is as shown on the attached
delineation map.
Indicate Which of the Followin� Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Deparhnent of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered fmal, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our publ'ished regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on t�he above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 134'4). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered fmal, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notifcation.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Deparhnent of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Crystal Amschler at828-271-7980 ext 231.
C. Basis For Determination
Determination was based on review of aerial and site nhoto�raphv, USGS, soils maps and information provided bv the
a�ent. Wetlands met criteria set forth in the Coras 1987 delineation manual and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Re�ion Sunplement and tributaries were identified using OHWM. Wetlands are adiacent to Bearskin Creek. Bearskin
Creek is a tributarv to Richardson Creek, a tributarv to Rockv River, which flows into the Pee Dee River, a Section 10
Water.
D. Remarks
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will fmd a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP_
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Divisio Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 2/3/2015
Expiration Date 2/3/2020
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http://per2.nwp.usace.army.miUsurve .v html to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
Kimley Horn, Mr Ross Sullivan, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, North Carolina 27513

Applicant: Citp of Monrae, M.r. Brian Borne � File Number: 2014-01908
Attacl�ed is:
❑ INI7'IAL PROFFER�D PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of pelmission}
(� PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of nermissionl
PERMIT D�NTAL
APPROVED NRISDICTIONAL DET�RMINI�TION
PR�LIMINARY ,TURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION�
Date: 2/3/2015
See Section below
A: INITIAL PR(}FFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the �ermit.
� ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pei�nit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the disirict engineer for final
autharization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and yaur work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP mear�s that you accept the permit in ifis entirety; and waive all
righis to appeal the permit, including its terms and corlditions, and approved jurisclictional determinations associated with the
pennit.
OBJECT: If you abject to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditioizs therein, yo� may request
ihat the permit lae modified accordingly. You must eomplete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objectians must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of �he date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal t11e pertnit in the fut�.ire. Upan receipt of your letter, the district engineer ��ill evaluate yaur
objections and may: (a) modify the pertnit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit iiaving determined that the pennit shauld be issued as previously �vritten. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered pennit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the pernut
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the pennit document arld return i� to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your w�ork is authorized. Your
signature on the Stai�dard Permit or accepta�lce of the LOP n�eans that you accept the �ennit in its entirety, and cvaive all
rights to appeal the pennit, including its tenns and conditions, and approved jurisdietional determinations associated with the
perinit.
• APPLt�L: If you choose to decline tlze proffered pennit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and canditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under tl�e Corps of Engii�eers Adrniilistrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this fonn and sending the fonn to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notiee.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a pennit under tl�e Corps af Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
conlpleting Section II of this form and sending the form ta the division engineer. This forn� must be received by tile division
engineer within 60 days of tlie date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETBRMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure ta notify t11e Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and �uaive all rights to appeal tlie approved JD.
m APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal tl�e approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completii�g Section II of this form and sei�ding the form to tl�e district engineer. This form
must be received by the divisiozi engineer witllin 60 days of the date of this notice.

L;: PRELIMIN�ARY JIJRISDICTIONAL DETBRMIN�TION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary J'D. The Preliminary TD is not appealable. If you wish, you nzay request ai� approved JD {which may be appealed),
by coxitacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also yau may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JU.
SE�T��7N ] I- R�QiI�ST �'QR API?EAL or ((�B:I�C'�'I4N� 'I'(� A1�i iNi'I'IAT, PRt)�PE�E� PERMI'T`
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OSJECTI4NS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or yaur objections to an initial
praffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this fo�m to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in tl�e administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a revie4v af the administrative 1•ecord, the Corps menlorandum for t(�e
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental infonnatioi� tl�at the review off cer has detennined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Nei�iler the appellant nor the Corps may add new infornlation or ailalyses to the record.
However, you inay pravide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
PUiNT U� C(J�T�CT �C?R {�l1ESTI�NS OR I�iFflRMATiOI�t;
If you have questions regarding tllis decision andlor the If you ouly have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal proeess you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, VVilmington Regnlafory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Adzninistrative Appeal Review 4fficer
Attn: Crystal Amschter, Project Manager CESAD-PDO �
� Asheville Regulatory Field tJPitee U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
151 Patton Avenue, Raon� 208 60 Forsyth Streef, Room l OM15
Ashevitie, North CaroIina 28802 � Atlanta, Georg�ia 30303-8$O1
Phone: [phone]
F2IGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any gavernment
consultants, to conduct investigations of the praject site during the course of tl�e appeai process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, a�nd ��ill l�ave the op ortunity to partici ate in all site iilvestigatio�ls. �
Date: Telephone number:
� Signature of appellant ar agent.
�or appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Divisian, Attn: Crystal Amschler, 151 Pattan Avenue, Room 208,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Deferminations send this form to:
Division Engir►eer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Sauth Attantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steete,
Administrative Agpeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, b0 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Y ;�� � �� �� "-� v � � �" .:4✓ � +1 �+T rt . ! � � ..i
-- �-� . . � � , ��4�r. - � - .4 �:r.�-s } '
� �: � ,,,, � ' • • � `�w � ' a'� . /
_ ..'. qg- - � �� �,� t`�. Y
� ` a. .�.�r a
J . i � � i _ � 't . / . �?�1 � _y�- t �+ �'�
I.��� ,. �--. c ff r .•��{��� � �- O�� �_ ;� ;�� �1��= � ' ..
�� <t �i �_ �:'`� � _ � , -� _t� �
� � - L ''� ��.xz- �- :. ?� - -
o� �� � ; : i . �� ,� . y
1 _.2}; :i e .,+� +' • tr - j _�-,�-u :' r —'-s.�^ --�
� E "-^+, ' s/ r r 4: :`" - ";_, �, � �Z� �
4:
�7eC �'� �:' r' , .;.
�. , � ., �
,� � � � : � � � , ��
.r r : �p:� � , - � r J t"s°'� 'r�`-. r 1 "�.
.._ � .�,�h ��E � �, y 4'.i-� :�. � r , � y �: ,�^''- - M� : `t'� i
. ^ �.,' : � r . � _ . � �+. e
�,,.: , c . � - -�1 y _ �e'
`_ . C � � - g'. .,J f " €
. . e • r � • � - �'� . �
' -�+ � � �- � � �,- � , � - , �- , � ,
�„ 3 : .S" t � � `�. .;. . �'t � �.� � -� : Y .'4 . . � � '` - ' _
i,2i r. � � Y,� r,,,; r �s"�. . s� `F �'S �7r "`. !! � �
. 1� �. - ��" � r � �: � -i". A�lt� -,�t�-, /p;; �` E- 's.4N � ,:��
�� j �_„� ��� �` ��- � '��-A. �4 c-%� �' � _ � �E' � . �F � - i i T �
_ l. $�r � -��+ � . " ', � '-'���� -1'y I �
� t j 5�
'_ �S'+ � t.J n il.��'. i'.'+i l. tt'�\ �:.- 4. ° ���. L; � . ��� ..~` a �
�� � ��� ` .�5� i' • - � �' t � 1 -
!? 4 . ' 1. n ,. `,y., . � i iu ��°`�'� �} '°` '
� �: j� � -� _ .-
' � t c.s � 'y �. � y � : ;,� _ � `a i T-- ,s � �
`_ ',e,3"'" - � �' . �• ; �? �±� �. - . 4��"` � 'c7�'' -"y� '`` �, .# s' -
.�1•-'rE L�.+.-.. �ef�t }�� �.�' .'� +�i�•�'b 3`� : ':�; _ � � �)�.�1 � S�.`;
if)}',` -'�. � ` � � y� •t � -�
Y
�� y � . ��.. � - -i � =� �� � � r' �-1t � ;'� �r � �.r . ,�
�. . �+.. ; _ • '���.,;`f . Jr�'�� ; �� � ; Yl �R`' 'i ��F � - � .
� ��-=�, � !j� : "'�.. ', ' r��t . '� ���_ �Yf. '� .,1 �-� �� .
,'� .'x.2i � �S .' �' ��f, � . .t- d ��� S`� � 1 'S 1 7ri > ( 's �r .� . �
. 2 � � � �` � �..=_-t 5' J�`'� r+�_ � . d N . , I �
�..+ $ �.1� � �, Y\7^�0� . "" , . -Ei'.� 2 ' ,}�� : �, .� , . .
e sf �]q,
�` �"�'�- --- 9 , � � �. :
,
y `"G�' � j� . . 'S
- _'.? ' ._ Xw' ' - � � i� 1� �.�' 1 � i� �! � . ) 1 / � 7f
� ?EIitE �'1
�" f �' l ?-.:
� � ����t�' .��Lo, tT'�`'�� _�-�� °a �. l � �F �,co`.6r�/ � 1ct9�y i74�.�� � � �� ._.
` ����" c . S �xt.'�.� .�t� ryr,. ' ,�I.Y � .2",� j. - t ��.� ! �..-.
,� , -rae .+�'7 .rr
� �1,g�..� . . �+py..�`�. . � ;` i tr ..xy4 �_ o� s4 _ `i.a
. .� .'. 3S� � a a � _ �^F£ . ��R! _/l'� , lr. .. .. �! , � . . .
', � p F ` 4 � .
��?o ���:V"' ���g"' � �.'_ tt • �Y'� ��%�,� �', ` � � � I -�., _. �` � F.. ..
��.� �. � • �- <<bp�t%° r ! J: i Of; :'� � .� .'
$ '� � .>�`' , � � � : �, s . �, ,� .
. . 1��: ,� � ;��. S; � � � � �; � � `L� � � C.:� '" x� k � � �- ti�
Y i� � +,�.< , � � f � � �- ` ' �� �( �� _
�¢
� a. � �, d,p J
� s� r/ �c'i . � . � � . ..
�.-� pi��i�a : t. '�s,� �. , — �C�- ���' .
�.�' �. ,' �1. _� �4 / � .�. . ' ._ _
� ��� �� � ��: � . .� ���I � �� l�1 i���
r�n.\l 'Y�% q :}' . � �LJ S�: i.�
..��-.J 1�.: � F p �* �{ �4-� -�
�s�" �' G ; y r. I _ � � Y . E �
' rC -�-t 'v. - . r
�..� € �'' J� � . ����_:� abliiC� � _ . _ � -_
... t. � � . . _. .
s �, : i�', f'tra : r � 1'i _ . �p�� ' � t ,� � �-' L. t � �t
�^' �` � � ; �F -,� ' t� s _ �s. � t� ��' t �` .
� � r
- '�'� v�r'a a J� ,�, . �.� ,� ,.. � �^:� � -, 1�W - �,` �'" �. � i's �i . f' y �,Y�'��y �,�t. �i a i
� -�` , ' �"u r'; �� r�-,�, � l � f � =
, _ � n�,. , . � f ; f = �, w
�P� i .� d � � � � ,� �,' � ,.Y�� r-- �s r �,c.3 i: a� ,'
�'� ;,� ' �p�,S .�, _x.,.: � .�g � € � -_ , �e �, : - ��
:. -�i .�-� � f �+� �4 � f� �j.� @j
� l � qt .'i� _' � �Y't.. ' a 7 - �'.` Jja r i,� d- �� S- i (* ._ } � .. - R _, Yt
�
- /� � ," •¢: ti ��"i. Q-fj ^7,`stc-.:I�- � =�1``• � �c� x` � �'t.-.��( s ->'sl.�`a�~ ��p_.
%•"l p vy : b � � x ` ���4�i, � . ' +� �r � �,)y��. � r�� a' � : a y -�a� :.
1� � � � y� } Y � ��" �..` x . \'�Y �iF �` +d�, i.q ��f'..'
. 2 .l"' !- . . % . 5 Z � 1 �
� `'/ • ,' !. � �-'. j 7"Y3 i,t- � � . • -'i � � l� -
♦! - i. S^✓� �5�� '��% � � x a �11I-. � s
�� �-a,� . , r ..:- . 4'3 o-C . t,��. ^ \,.�4 �.�'' ; �'_:�
�.�' �� . �`z �db'..f.�+ �i?� `,�':{_ ` . � ty� �"'+��a{�t;'t'f`74ac.� �..y
' °� , �� F .. r� �! '� � ti. .. � �' �' s .. Yt' \ • - +'� v g �� Y ` '�" � �,:
Y S
4 � . / r- � � .. o' < .�' '+".- Q- - 4�� �i�..,,53p '�c' � � �. � � ". : •
�y' �� �. '� � c �-�' � �r
�'�i �� ,�. \ � r ^ �.�: ''+ } '' 4 s��� �� ,�� 1^� �~?
^� �,��� �.. ?- ` - z s . r � a�'i _ ' � � �
;'� gr 4. �. � � , ;�' �c • :.� �',�, �'r,.�'r 6~ �-r�.- ,.,.
�.�- y 'Yn �y �ti` � � ` r ��� � � Nf ��r'�',,�'�:��,�y -.'�: � '�'t ��� ��
� � .-�, t -. T� t �..3. �. � � __ %i��' �. .aq`! �~Y: .
'`-. �2 +f'�•' ' - �w 3' � �� ,�' �l N �t n:.+:. . av " �,� di��' '`:� ... _� �!_`�x'e � .. .
g. ,,7?. ."r_ t � u:�: � ' _ .
1, . �-r�- s-,�
` ',F% ? �,:5' `a � '�l� 6ti � _ s '� _ - rs x �=
:Y. # � v .< PSp.� ���[""i"'' . .at _
�". �' {�Y� �� � - `� C. � :' � . .
- � �' ` � ,T . �l.' : � . '+' .
t �', c' ' .t as � �ax( z ,• � y.. �2ct� ���;.
:G: '�'}q.;;'� / k e r � -� a ` c .�r �+
Y � :.' 2 - � _ <'r .
t' ' ,,. � �` � -
:'1, �' � ''` ` k
t^` :: . '�'�p. �'.�y 6J � � �s`�. � ` 4 � r .
s
fi � °'_"-� ¢ ���r .
t . Y� � � i � Q t,,�
i , �} I` �:,�: I' �'ca�a� � � � � �'Y � .� �
f � �� . .� �i z ; . . .. �.
�/ C.�_ �. 'i.. . ' .��-: �- j�� r
� � ��?O, �(0 �� � ^.�xr '� • ;.�
k y �.. L{T� .. � �� . . .-,� � �.. ��, .
� . � �: � �-��-�
. P.4 yY� N q �� r� .� �� - � I
i`a
� a%�e
��- C�'y U�)�� . .. "��
r \ `L� rrm .:�.4, .:: � � .
� � . ,�— t,� . � � , _ � ;
�s� -Jf p ,'� �'.
. - _ '�i �\ . .'t".` -1 _ _ _ q '� r"y\'i"si�p.
'- � , a. - . � >. I� . � � . .�F. '` v � y^ _ _ .. . . _. . _ � ��.' ... �� a
Q%
O �
O V-
�n
Q � T U �.{�
� � � z O
� N m C L
� C� W O �
c� �c � U �
�. � ~ � �
L Q
8 U �c
� � �
� �
�
L (�
� �
� m
�.

PLAN SHEETS

STREAM AND WETLAND
DATA FORMS

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 10/9/2014 ProjeCUSite: gearskin�reek�reenwayw LatitUde: 34.987288
(Bearskin�reek)
Evaluator: ��+artsnorr,, Count : Union Lon itude: -80.558176
R.v�ullivan y g
Total Points: 45 StreamvDeterminatiorn,(�ir e) Othennnnn�nnnnnnnnnr�
Stream�isvat�l.east�intermittent EphemeralvLntermitten erennial e.g.�2uad�A�Jame: MOnI"Oe
if�va 9�n,Werennialtif��fd0
A.vf'veomorphologyv�ubtotalv¢w
1 a.wEontinuity�fe¢hannel�ned�nd�Aaank
2.wu�inuosity�f�¢hannel�longvthalweg
3.wu�n-channel�tructure:�x.wiffle-pool,v
poolv�equence
4.w�k'article�size�f�treamvsubstrate
5.wuActive/relicvEloodplai n
6.w�Depositional�iaars�r�aenches
7.w�62ecentva I I uvialudeposits
8.w�bleadcuts
9.w�rade�¢ontrol
10.�n�DJatu ralwal ley
�
11.w�econd�r�reater�rden�¢hannel
a�lrtificial�itchesvarew�otwated;vsee�iscussionstinwnanual
B.vbiydrologyv�ubtotalv�w g
,�nnpple-
Weak
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Moderate Stror
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
1 1.5
1 1.5
Yes=3
Score
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
12.w6'resence�f�fdaseflow 0 1 2 3 3
13.wG-on�xidizing�inacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14.wi�eaf�Aitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
15.w�ediment�n�alants�r�ebris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16.wOrganic�ebris�#ines�r�iles 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
17.w�oil-based�vidence�f�ighwvatenhable? Nov�� Yes = 3 3
C.v�Biologyv�ubtotalu�w 7
18.�ibrouswootsun�treambed 3 2 1 0 3
19.�i2ooted�napland�alants�nw�treambed 3 2 1 0 3
20.�nA�/lacrobenthos�note�liversityv�ndvabundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21.wAquaticv�ulollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22.wEish 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
23.�rayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24.wAmphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25.wAlgae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26.�,JdVetland�alants�invstreambed FACWv��,0.75;�,OBL�vd.5;�,Other = 0 0
'perennial�atreamsumayva�Iso�,betidentifieduasing�therunethods.w�ee�p.�II5�funanual.
Notes:w Bearskin�reek�,�S1)�i,sva�arge�erennial�¢hannelNnrithvstrongw
baseflowvandva�icewneander.�Avluchuafvt�e�each�val uated�loes�ofih�avevaw
riparian�iauffervandvseveralvareas�nnrithinvthevstream�ave�iaeenv�tabal ized�nasingw
ripwapvand�abion�laaskets.v�omev�mallvEishwvere�bserved�nvt4�e�¢hannel.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
1. Applicant's name: Clty Of M011t'Oe 2. Evaluator's name: �• Hartshorn, iZ. Sullivan
3. Date of evaluation: 10/09/2014
5. Name ofstream: Bearskin Creek (Stream S1)
7. Approximate drainage area: $,350 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: ^'5,000 linear feet
4. Time of evaluation: 1:30 pm
6. River basin: Y8 d kl n
8. Stream order:,TI111'CI OI'Clel'
10. counry: Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N�A
Laritude �eX. 34.s�z3 �z�: 34•987288 Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66� 1�: -80.558176
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS�Jther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The reach was evaluated from east of the tennis courts in Dickerson Park to where the creek crosses under Allen Street.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): NOne
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and warm with no rain within 5 days and temps ranging 39 to 84 degrees Farenheit.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SU1111y, dry and warm with a temperature of N79 degrees Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential 15 % Commercial 15 % Industrial 20 % Agricultural
20 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 15�-2�� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5�-10�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �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 far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
Bearskin Creek �S1) is a large perennial channel with strong baseflow and a nice meander. Much of the reach evaluated does
not have a riparian buffer and several areas within the stream have been stabalized using rip rap and Gabion baskets. Some
small fish were observed in the channel.
Evaluator's Signature �"�''`9 "' `�a'"�''`9'�r'' Date 10/09/2014
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 to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Bearskin Creek (Stream S1)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 4
Evidence of past human alteration
� extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 1
Riparian zone
3 no buffer = 0; conti uous, wide buffer = max points 0— 6 0— 4 0— 5 2
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 2
,� Groundwater discharge
� 5 (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 2
,� Presence of adjacent floodplain 2
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / tloodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
g (no wetlands = 0; large adj acent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 1
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0— 5 0— 4 0— 3 3
Sediment input
�� (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 Z
� 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 3
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
I Z Evidence of channel incision or widening 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banlcs = max points)
� Presence of major bank failures
� 13 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 3
�
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 Z
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
� 6 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 4
F no riffles/rip les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
� Habitat complexity
� �� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0— 6 0— 6 0— 6 4
� Canopy coverage over streambed
� � g (no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous cano = max oints) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 2
Substrate embeddedness
� 9 dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA* 0— 4 0— 4 3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
�� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0— 4 0— 5 0— 5 �
�Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous rypes = max points)
Presence of fish
O 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 l 00 ] 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) SQ
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 10/9/2014 PI'OJ2Ct/SIt2: Bearskin�reek�reenwa atitude: 34.986839
(Streamu�2)
Evaluator: ��+artsnorr,, Count : Union Lon itude: -80.563598
R.v�ullivan y g
Total Points: 17.5 S eterminatiorn,(�ircle�ne) OthennenMnnnn�nnnnr�
Stream�isvat�l.east�intermittent hemer termittent�'erennial e.g.�2uad�A�Jame: MOnI"Oe
if�va 9�n,Werennialtif��fd0
A.vf'veomorphologyv�ubtotalv¢w
1 a.wEontinuity�fe¢hannel�ned�nd�Aaank
2.wu�inuosity�f�¢hannel�longvthalweg
3.wu�n-channel�tructure:�x.wiffle-pool,v
pool�sequence
4.w�k'article�size�f�tream�substrate
5.wuActive/relicvEloodplai n
6.w�Depositional�haars�ndaenches
7.w�62ecentva I I uvialwleposits
8.w�bleadcuts
9.w�rade�¢ontrol
10.�n�DJ atu ra Iwa I I ey
6.5
11.w�econd�r�reater�rden�¢hannel
a�lrtificial�itchesvarew�otwated;vsee�iscussionstinwnanual
B.vbiydrologyv�ubtotalv�w 4.5
,�nnpple-
Weak
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Moderate Stror
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
1 1.5
1 1.5
Yesv�v8
Score
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
12.w6'resence�f�fdaseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13.w�ron�xidizing�inacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14.wi�eaf�Aitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5
15.w�ediment�n�alants�n,alebris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16.wOrganic�ebris�#ines�r�iles 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
17.w�oil-based�vidence�f�ighwvatenhable? Nov�� Yes = 3 3
C.v�Biologyv�ubtotalu�w 6.5
18.�ibrouswootsun�treambed 3 2 1 0 2
19.�fitooted�napland�alants�nw�treambed 3 2 1 0 3
20.�nA�/lacrobenthos�note�liversityv�ndvabundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21.wAquaticv�ulollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22.wEish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23.�rayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24.wAmphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25.wAlgae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26.�,JdVetland�alants�invstreambed FACWv��,0.75;�,OBL = 1.5;�,Otherv��,0 1.5
'perennial�atreamsumayva�Iso�,betidentifieduasing�therunethods.w�ee�p.�II5�funanual.
Notes:w Streamv�2�i,s��smallvstormwatenalrain�that�¢arriesumverland�oww
from�¢Iearedwleveloped�rea.v�he�stormwatervE�owsvappeanho�iae�nighwelocityw
which�as�,¢aused�rosionvthatwleeplyw�cisedvthe�¢hannelw�ear�fdearski n�reek
�(i4-5'wJeep).�lovE�oww�as�bservedti�n�hheu¢hannel�aluringvthe�itewisit.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
� STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ��,�.,
�� �
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
1. Applicant's name: Clty Of M011t'Oe 2. Evaluator's name: �• Hartshorn, iZ. Sullivan
3. Date of evaluation: 10/09/2014 4. Time of evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream S2 6. River basin: YBdkln
7. Approximate drainage area: 24 aCreS 8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'del'
9. Length of reach evaluated: 31 Illleal' feet 10. counry: Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N�A
Laritude �eX. 34.s�z3 �z�: 34.986839 Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66� 1�: -80.563598
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS�Jther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The reach evaluated is located west of the tennis courts in Dickerson Park.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): NOne
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and warm with no rain within 5 days and temps ranging 39 to 84 degrees Farenheit.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SU1111y, dry and warm with a temperature of N79 degrees Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Np 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
50 % Forested 30 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'q'�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �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 far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 17 Comments:
Stream S2 is a small stormwater drain that carries overland flow from cleared developed area. The stormwater flows a�pear to
be high velocity which has caused erosion that deeply incised the channel near Bearskin Creek (4-5' deep�. No flow was
observed in the channel during the site visit.
Evaluator's Signature �"�''`9 "' `�a'"�''`9'�r'' Date 10/09/2014
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 to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream S2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 �
Evidence of past human alteration
� extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 2
Riparian zone
3 no buffer = 0; conti uous, wide buffer = max points 0— 6 0— 4 0— 5 �
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 3
,� Groundwater discharge
� 5 (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 1
,� Presence of adjacent floodplain O
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / tloodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
g (no wetlands = 0; large adj acent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 Q
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0— 5 0— 4 0— 3 �
Sediment input
�� (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 Z
� 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 2
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
I Z Evidence of channel incision or widening 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 1
� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banlcs = max points)
� Presence of major bank failures
� 13 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 1
�
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 �
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 1
� 6 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 1
F no riffles/rip les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
� Habitat complexity
� �� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0— 6 0— 6 0— 6 Q
� Canopy coverage over streambed
� � g (no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous cano = max oints) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 Q
Substrate embeddedness
� 9 dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA* 0— 4 0— 4 1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
�� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0— 4 0— 5 0— 5 �
�Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous rypes = max points)
Presence of fish
O 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 �
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 l 00 ] 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 1]
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 10/9/2014 PI'OJ2Ct/SIt2: Bearskin�reek�reenwa atitude: 34.988071
(Streamu�3)
Evaluator: ��+artsnorr,, Count : Union Lon itude: -80.558353
R.v�ullivan y g
Total Points: 29.5 StreamvDeterminatiorn,(�ir e) OthennenMnnnMnnnnr�
Stream�isvat�l.east�intermittent EphemeralvLntermitten erennial e.g.�2uad�A�Jame: MOnI"Oe
if�va 9�n,Werennialtif��fd0
A.vf'veomorphologyv�ubtotalv¢w 12.5
1 a.wEontinuity�fe¢hannel�nedvand�Aaank
2.wu�inuosity�fuzhannel�longvt#�alweg
3.wu�n-channel�tructu re:�x.wiffle-pool,v�tep-poc
pool�sequence
4.w�k'article�size�f�tream�substrate
5.wuActive/relicvEloodplai n
6.w�Depositional�iaars�r�aenches
7.w�62ecentva I I uvialwleposits
8.w�bleadcuts
9.w�rade�¢ontrol
10.�n�DJatu ralwal ley
11.w�econd�r�reater�rden�¢hannel
a�lrtificial�itchesvarew�otwated;vsee�iscussionstinwnanual
B.vbiydrologyv�ubtotalv�w 8.5
,�ppie-
Weak
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Moderate Stror
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
1 1.5
1 1.5
Yesv�v8
Score
3
2
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0.5
0
12.w6'resence�f�fdaseflow 0 1 2 3 3
13.wG-on�xidizing�inacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14.wi�eaf�Aitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
15.w�ediment�n�alants�r�ebris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
16.wOrganic�ebris�#ines�r�iles 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
17.w�oil-based�vidence�f�ighwvatenhable? Nov�� Yes = 3 3
C.v�Biologyv�ubtotalu�w 8.5
18.�ibrouswootsun�treambed 3 2 1 0 2
19.�fi2ooted�napland�alants�nw�treambed 3 2 1 0 3
20.�nA�/lacrobenthos�note�liversityv�ndvabundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21.wAquaticv�ulollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22.w�ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
23.�rayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24.wAmphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25.wAlgae 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
26.�,JdVetland�alants�invstreambed FACWv��,0.75;�,OBL = 1.5;�,Otherv��,0 1.5
'perennial�atreamsumayva�Iso�,betidentifieduasing�therunethods.w�ee�p.�II5�funanual.
Notes:w Streamv�3�i,svawveak�erennial�¢hannelvF�owing�aarallel�to�lorth
Johnsonv�treefinnv��topographic�¢renulation.v�mallvE�shwvere�bserved
throughoutvt�ee¢hannel.v5heustream�aswiowi parian�fauffervandvappearsvto�ave
historically�laeenvaltered�iayHarevious�uman�ctivity.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
� STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ��,�.,
�� �
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
1. Applicant's name: Clty Of M011t'Oe 2. Evaluator's name: �• Hartshorn, iZ. Sullivan
3. Date of evaluation: 10/09/2014 4. Time of evaluation: 12:30 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream S3 6. River basin: YBdkln
7. Approximate drainage area: 24 aCreS 8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'del'
9. Length of reach evaluated: 427 I111ed1' fe2t 10. counry: Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N�A
Laritude �eX. 34.s�z3 �z�: 34.988071 Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66� 1�: -80.558353
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS�Jther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach south of Icemorlee Street that runs parallel to Johnson Street and empties into Bearskin Creek.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): NOne
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and warm with no rain within 5 days and temps ranging 39 to 84 degrees Farenheit.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SU1111y, dry and warm with a temperature of N79 degrees Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Np 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential 30 % Commercial 50 % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3-q'� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �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 far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 32 Comments:
Stream S3 is a weak perennial channel flowingparallel to North ]ohnson Street in a topo4raphic crenulation. Small fish were
observed throughout the channel. The stream has no riparian buffer and appears to have historically been altered by qrevious
human activity.
Evaluator's Signature �"�''`9 "' `�a'"�''`9'�r'' Date 10/09/2014
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 to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream S3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of past human alteration
� extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 �
Riparian zone
3 no buffer = 0; conti uous, wide buffer = max points 0— 6 0— 4 0— 5 �
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 2
,� Groundwater discharge
� 5 (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 2
,� Presence of adjacent floodplain 2
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / tloodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
g (no wetlands = 0; large adj acent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 Q
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0— 5 0— 4 0— 3 �
Sediment input
�� (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 Z
� 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 2
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
I Z Evidence of channel incision or widening 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banlcs = max points)
� Presence of major bank failures
� 13 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 3
�
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 3
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
� 6 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 3
F no riffles/rip les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
� Habitat complexity
� �� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0— 6 0— 6 0— 6 Q
� Canopy coverage over streambed
� � g (no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous cano = max oints) 0— 5 0— 5 0— 5 Q
Substrate embeddedness
� 9 dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA* 0— 4 0— 4 Z
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
�� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0— 4 0— 5 0— 5 �
�Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous rypes = max points)
Presence of fish
O 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
� (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 �
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 l 00 ] 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 32
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�eot�s�te: Bearskin Creek Greenway cityicounty: Monroe/Union Sampling Date: 10�9�2014
ApplicanUOwner: Clty Of M011f02 State: NC Sampling Point: W1-UP
Investigator(s): .7. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan section, TownsniP, Range: M011COe
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.�: Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): NOne Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P �at: 34•988$79 Long: -$0.550410 Datum: NAD-1983
Soil Map Unit Name: CileWdCld SIIt IOdl1'1 NWI classification: NOne
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Data form location W1-UP is N26' east from and 3' higher than W1-WET. It is located in a
maintained grassy lawn with sparse tree cover.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Prese�t? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches): >
Water Table Present. Yes No II Depth (inches): 24�� �
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): >24�� Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed within the upland area. Both the water table and
soil saturation were not observed within the upper 24" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3�� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Quercus nigra 60% Y FAC
z. Frczxinus americana 20% Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�, LiQustrum sinense
Z. Rosa multiflora
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
$0% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: W1-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
7 �B�
14.3% ��B�
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
10% Y FACU FAC species 60 x 3= 180
10% Y FACU FACu species 77% x 4= 308
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 137 (A) 488 (B)
Z�% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
�. Festuca sp. 30% Y NI
Z. Digitaria sanguinalis 30% Y FACU
3, Allium canadense 5% N FACU
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.56
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
65% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� ) Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
�.Parthenocissus guinquefolia 2% Y FACU hei ht.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic �
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
The upland area is a maintained lawn area that is regularly mowed with sparse tree cover. A majority of the vegetation
present is introduced and not naturally occurring.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: W1-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-24" 10YR 6/5 100% Loam Friable
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
The soil is friable throughout the upper 24" of the soil profile. No indicators of hydric soil were
observed at the data form location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�eot�s�te: Bearskin Creek Greenway cityicounty: Monroe/Union Sampling Date: 10�9�2014
ApplicanUOwner: Clty Of M011f02 State: NC Sampling Point: W1-W�
Investigator(s): .7. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan section, TownsniP, Range: M011COe
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.�: Floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): C011CdV2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P �at: 34•988$97 Long: -$0.550323
_ Slope (%): <1%
Datum: NAD-1983
Soil Map Unit Name: CileWdCld SIIt IOdl11 NWI classification: N0112
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area _/
within a Wetland? Yes ♦ No
Wetland W1 is a floodplain depression wetland that is bounded by topography on 3 sides. Hydrophytic
vegetation is established within the wetland area and the wetland appears to be perched on a hard rock
layer. According to NOAA/NWS, no rain was reported for Monroe within 5 days prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Prese�t? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches): >
Water Table Present. Yes No II Depth (inches): z4��
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): 2��� Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland W1 is a depressional area that is N 3' lower in elevation than the surrounding floodplain
area. W1 receives hydrology from Bearskin Creek. The water table was not observed within the
upper 24" of the soil profile. The soil was saturated at N 20" in the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3�� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Salix nigra 20% Y OBL
z. Acer ne�undo 20% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
40% = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�, Acer negundo 25% Y FAC
Z. Cornus amomum 20% Y FACW
3. Ligustrum sinense 5% N FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
�. Commelina virginica 5% Y FACW
Z. Persicaria hydropiperoides 5% Y OBL
3, Boehmeria cylindrica 5% Y FACW
4, Carex sp. 5% Y NI
5. Rumex sp. 2% N NI
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
Sampling Point: W1-W�
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 900�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
ZZ% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� ) Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
�.Toxicodendron radicans 5% Y FAC hei ht.
2.Lonicera iaponica 5% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
1�% = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
90% of the dominant vegetation is considered Facultative or "wetter" according to the Dominance Test. Therefore, the
vegetation is considered to be hydrophytic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W1-W�
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6" 10YR 5/2 90% 10YR 5/6 10% C M Clay loam
6-24" 10YR 6/2 95% 10YR 5/6 5% C M Loamy clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
The soil is indicative of long-term inundation within a floodplain. A restrictive layer (likely rock) was
observed at a depth of N24". The water table was not observed, but the soil was saturated at 20".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

PCE APPROVAL

G. PCE Ap rp ovai
TIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
EB-5011
42125.LF1
STPEB-1015{14)
The City of Monroe proposes to construct a l.b-mile long greenway, referred to
as the Bearskin Creek Greenway, from Icemore(ee Street to Skyway Drive in
Monroe, Union County. The greenway will be a 10-foot wide paved path with 2-
foot wide gravel shoulders. It will cross Jolmson Street, Char(otte Avenue, and
Skyway Drive with crosswalks. It will traverse under I.B. Shrive Drive aud the
CSX railroad tracks, and cross over Bearskin Creek with a pedestrian bridge.
This project is included in the currenTNCDOT State Transportation Improvement
Program as Project EB-5011.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE I (A)
TYPE I (B)
Preaared Bv:
5/20/%,
Date Teresa
Ktmley
Compan
Prepared For: �
Reviewed:
Date
NO BOXES Checked
ANY BOX Checked
City of Monroe, NC,
-PDEA / NCDOT
Approved: For Type I(B) or II(B) projects only:
Date
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
919-677-2194
��.�,,.� r .
N CA1i� �'"+r�
�FESS/0 ��`S��r�
SEAL � z
93fi55o � s
NGIN��� �� +
.......•
��� �
r�n�tae�w�
PCE-100L 9 June 2013

USFWS NO EFFECT
DETERMINATION

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 13, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Dear NIr. Elliott:
Subject: Federally Listed Species Assessment for Proposed Bearskin Creek Greenway Trail
Project, in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina
On July 17, 2015, we received a letter (via e-mail) from Mr. Jason Hartshorn of Kimley-Horn
requesting our review and comments on the subject project. We have reviewed the information
that Mr. Hartshorn provided via ShareFile and are providing the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description — According to the information provided, the purpose of the project is to
construct a greenway trail (+-1.5 miles long) along Bearskin Creek. The proposed corridor
consists primarily of cleared/maintained areas within parks, along roadsides, and within existing
easements. The project will proceed as a non-reporting Nationwide 14 project due to minimal
impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Endangered Species — According to our records and a review of the information presented, no
listed species or their habitats occur on the site. The proposed project will not adversely affect
federally listed species known to occur within Union County. We believe the proper
determination for this project is "no effect". Therefore we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.

Fish and Wildlife Resources — We are concerned about the potential indirect and secondary
impacts that could occur to the stream and wetlands on the subject property. We recommend
that indirect and secondary impacts should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
We recommend the following measures to help minimize project impacts:
Preserve and/or restore forested riparian buffers where feasible. Forested riparian
buffers, a minimum of 100-feet wide along perennial streams and 50-feet wide
along intermittent streams (or as wide as practicable given site constraints),
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Riparian buffers
provide travel corridors and habitat for wildlife displaced by development. In
addition, riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing stream banks,
filtering storm-water runoff, and providing habitat for aquatic and fisheries
resources.
2. Use low impact development techniques, such as reduced greenway widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention
areas, for retaining and treating storm water runoff rather than the more traditional
measures, such as large retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to
install and significantly reduce environmental impacts from residential
development. Where detention ponds are used, storm water outlets should drain
through a vegetated area prior to reaching any natural stream or wetland area.
Detention structures should be designed to allow for the slow discharge of storm
water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm water surges; thermal
spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm water control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm water control measures or best management practices should be installed
within any stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials
(i.e., pervious concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction
of roads, driveways, sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the
hydrology of the watershed and can be used to facilitate groundwater recharge.
Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and store heat and allow the
cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete requires
less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
3. Install and maintain stringent measures to control erosion and sediment in order to
prevent unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources within and downstream of the
project site. Disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mi�ctures that are
beneficial to wildlife. Fescue-based rnixtures should be avoided. Native annual
small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended.
Perimeter erosion-control devices should be installed prior to any on-the-ground
activities. Frequent maintenance of these devices is critical to their proper
function in order to minimize sediment discharge from the project site.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-15-212.
Sincerely,
- - oNiginal signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
E-Copy: Mr. Jason Hartshorn, Kimley-Horn, [e-mail]