20090809 Ver 1_401 Application_20090709

Letter of Transmittal
S&ME, Inc. *S&ME
9751 Southern Pine Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard. Suite 250
DATE: July 14, 2009 I JOB NO: 1356-09-003
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
RE: Dallas Lake Dam Project
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ® Attached ? Under separate cover via
? Shop drawings ? Prints ? Plans ? Draft
® Copy of letter ? Report
09-0809
-the following items:
? Specifications
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
1 7.14.09 1 Courtesy Copy of Nationwide Permit No. 3 Application Package
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? For approval
? As requested
? FORBIDS DUE: -I I
® For your record
? For review and comment ?
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Attached please find the above. Please let me know if you have questions, Thank you.
- Joey Lawler
SIGN:
COPY TO: File
IL4 11
'VOP 1
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S&ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
I?u
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STGRRp,%TER 9RAtIC,4
S&ME SFG-001
(Rev. 04/04)
r U
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
H.
12.
13.
Please provide the following info:
Project Name: Dallas Lake Dam Repair
Gaston County Public Works
Name of Property owner/Applicant: Post Office Box 1578
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1578
Attention: Mr. Dan Ziehm, P.E.
Name of Consultant/Agent: S&ME, Inc. Attn: Joey Lawler, PWS
*Agent Authorization needs to be attached
Related/Previous Action ID Number(s): None
The project area is located within an approximately 98.06-acre site operated
Site Address: as Dallas Park.
MOY
DcJC>
Subdivision Name: N/A
City: Dallas
County: Gaston (Tax Parcel Nos. 3547-35-4281 and 3547-46-3086).
Lat: 35.32223 Long: -80.21122 (Decimal Degrees Please)
Quadrangle Name: Gastonia North, N.C. (1993)
Waterway: On-site stream is UT to Long Creek - DWQ Index No. 11-120-(0.5)
Watershed: South Fork Catawba (HUC 03050102)
Requested Action:
t
rp) GT
X Nationwide Permit # 3 :; Li General Permit # v uL
Jurisdictional Determination Request
WETLP,r DENR - WATER QUALITY
Pre-Application Request "DSANDST,riRMj..rEROR.^+lCII
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
,.
S&ME
Celebrating 35 Years
1973.2008
July 14, 2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin
Reference: Application for Nationwide Permit No. 3 and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Dallas Lake Dam Repair
Dallas, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dear Mr. Chapin:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this application for temporary impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 (Maintenance). S&ME is working on behalf
of Gaston County Public Works (Gaston County), who will be considered the applicant
for this permit. Please find enclosed the following:
• Figures: Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2005
Aerial Photograph (Figure 3), USDA Gaston County Soil Survey Map (Figure 4)
and Site Plan (Figure 5);
• Appendix I: A completed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and Agent
Authorization Form;
• Appendix II: Site Photographs;
• Appendix III: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form;
• Appendix IV: NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet; and
• Appendix V: Copies of Agency Correspondence.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
For purposes of this permit application, the subject property is referred to as the Dallas
Lake Dam site, and is located within Dallas Park. The park entrance is located at the
intersection of Dallas-Cherryville Highway (N.C. Highway 279) and Sportsman Drive.
Dallas Lake Dam is an existing low-hazard dam that is currently in need of repair. An
existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) riser and outlet pipe, both of which were observed
to be in poor condition, are proposed for replacement with a reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) riser and outlet pipe.
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

Application for Nationwide Permit No. 3 SWE Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dallas Lake Dam Repair July 14 2009
The subject dam was constructed in 1954 and is currently maintained by Gaston County.
The dam is registered with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) Dam Safety Program as a Small, Class A - Low Hazard dam, and
was last repaired in November 1977. These repairs consisted of replacing a 15-inch-
diameter outlet pipe with a 36-inch-diameter corrugated metal riser and 30-inch-diameter
CMP outlet through the embankment. Embankment work was also performed to
construct an eight-foot-wide walkway along the crest of the dam, and to flatten the slope
from approximately 2 horizontal (H): l vertical (V) to 3H:1 V on its downstream face.
During a January 23, 2009 site visit, S&ME observed that the visible portions of the
CMP riser and outlet installed in 1977 were severely corroded and in need of
replacement. The corroded riser has resulted in a lake surface level approximately 1.5
feet lower than normal. Replacement of the corroded riser will allow the lake to return to
its original level. The enclosed PCN and accompanying support materials are being
submitted in application for NWP No. 3 authorization of necessary dam repair and
maintenance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS
Dallas Lake Dam is an earthen embankment located southwest of the parking lot at the
terminus of Leisure Lane (Figure 3). The existing dam embankment is approximately 23
feet high, with a crest width of approximately 12 feet and an approximate impoundment
volume of 16.4 acre-feet. The area of the proposed rehabilitation work consists of
cleared, grassed land north and east of the dam, with wooded areas to the south and west.
Ground surface elevations range from approximately 722 feet mean sea level (MSL)
south of the dam to approximately 744 feet (MSL) at the western end of the dam. Site
drainage generally drains to an existing stream (Stream 1), which flows north to south.
Based on review of the Gaston County Soil Survey Map, the soil type mapped in the
immediate dam vicinity consists of Madison sandy clay loam (MaD2) (Figure 4).
Photographs of conditions as they currently exist at the site are included in Appendix II.
The proposed project involves maintenance and repair activities to remedy the issues
associated with the existing CMP outlet and riser (Figure 5). Accordingly, the work will
consist of excavation of the embankment at 2H:1 V side slopes down to elevations of the
existing CMP outlet pipe. Following excavation, the existing CMP outlet pipe will be
replaced with a RCP outlet. A seepage diaphragm will be constructed around the outlet
pipe, and a toe drain constructed at the groin of the dam. A riprap wave action pad will
be installed along the upstream edge of the embankment, above the water level. The last
phase of construction will involve installation of a spillway energy dissipater and
stabilization of the final grading. Following the repairs, areas disturbed during
construction and existing bare areas on the upstream and downstream embankment slopes
will be seeded. The proposed excavation will disturb approximately 0.3 acre total.
Prior to performing these repairs, the lake will be drawn down using an existing siphon
drain. The purpose of the drawdown is for general safety considerations, and to help
prevent potential dam instability while repair activities are underway. The drawdown
will be maintained until the repairs are complete. A rip-rap cofferdam shall be constructed
upstream of the proposed dam site, and baseflow and storm water discharging outside of and
2
Application for Nationwide Permit No. 3 S&ME Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dallas Lake Dam Repair July 14 2009
upstream of the disturbed area shall be pumped around the disturbed area. The area of
temporary disturbance associated with the coffer dam and work space to replace the riser is
approximately 0.18 acre.
A temporary sediment basin or silt bag will be utilized at the existing siphon outlet to
filter drawdown water from the lake prior to its discharge into Stream 1.
On March 10, 2009 S&ME personnel visited the site and conducted a delineation to
determine the location of jurisdictional streams and wetlands within the project area. The
project area was defined as extending from the base of the embankment southward to an
existing aerial sewerline. The delineation was conducted utilizing currently accepted
methods for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual.
From its origin at the existing outlet, approximately 21 linear feet (10 of Stream 1 is
located within the project area. The stream is lined with riprap, a portion of which has
been scoured and deposited downstream. Minor areas of erosion were observed around
the corroded pipe. No wetlands were observed within the project area.
Vegetation within the project site consists primarily of various grasses, although several
mature sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua) and red maple (Acer rubrum) trees are
located near the base of the embankment slope. Herbaceous vegetation included
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bamboo grass (Microstegium vimineum), pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana) and broomstraw (Andropogon sp.). Vine species included
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form is included in Appendix 111, and
completed DWQ Stream Identification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets are included in Appendix IV.
PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
The proposed temporary stream impacts are required to properly perform the work
identified above. Project-wide stream impacts are identified in Table 1:
Table 1: Temporary Impacts
Stream Impacts
Feature ID Length (If) Purpose
Stream 1 21 Replacement of riprap spillway energy dissipater
Open Water Impacts
Feature ID Area (ac) Purpose
Dallas Lake 0.18 Construction of coffer dam and dewatering of work area
Work associated with Stream 1 will be limited to the footprint of the existing riprap apron
(approximately 21 If), and will not result in additional stream impacts. Temporary impacts
associated with work within Dallas Lake will be limited to construction of the coffer dam
and work space associated with replacement of the riser structure (0.18 acre).
3
Application for Nationwide Permit No. 3 SWE Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dallas Lake Dam Repair July 14 2009
PROTECTED SPECIES
S&ME provided scoping letters to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 16, 2009. The
scoping letters included a description of the proposed work, figures detailing the location
of the project area, and a request for comment regarding concerns that each agency may
have with respect to the project. The NCNHP responded with a March 24, 2009 letter
that did not identify records of federally-listed species near the project site, and the
USFWS responded with a similar letter on April 14, 2009 stating that requirements of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act had been fulfilled. Copies of the NCNHP and
USFWS letters are included in Appendix V.
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
S&ME also provided a scoping letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) on March 16, 2009. SHPO responded with an April 1, 2009 letter (see
Appendix V) stating that they were aware of no cultural resources that would be affected
by the proposed project.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts that are not necessary to
facilitate its stated objectives. These measures resulted in avoiding permanent impacts to
Stream 1. No wastes, spoils, solids or fills will be placed within waters or riparian areas
beyond the limits of those depicted in this PCN application. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control practices will be implemented to meet water quality turbidity standards.
Best Management Practices employed for the project will be in compliance with the most
recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual," and the local governing authority.
During construction, additional measures will be utilized to limit the impacts identified
above. A silt fence outlet shall be used to aid in the prevention of silt fence failure due to
excessive ponding of water behind the silt fence, and will be field-located during silt
fence installation at the site of concentrated runoff locations. Sediment and erosion
control devices and planted areas shall be inspected every seven days, and after each
rainfall occurrence that exceeds one-half (1/2) inch. Damaged or ineffective devices will
be repaired or replaced, as necessary, by the end of the day.
Temporary control devices will be removed once construction is complete and the site is
stabilized. Seeded areas shall be fertilized, reseeded as necessary, and mulched
according to the seeding plan to maintain a vigorous, dense vegetative cover.
MITIGATION
The proposed project involves less than 1501f of temporary stream impacts and
approximately 0.18 acres of temporary open water impacts. There are no impacts to
wetlands. Jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent
practicable. We do not anticipate that our client will be required to provide additional
compensatory mitigation since avoidance and minimization efforts have been undertaken
in the planning process.
4
Application for Nationwide Permit No. 3 SWE Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dallas Lake Dam Repair July 14 2009
WATER QUALITY
On April 9, 2009, S&ME personnel met Mr. Alan Johnson with NCDENR - Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) on-site. Mr. Johnson reviewed the proposed plans and indicated
that DWQ notification was not required. However, a courtesy copy of this application
package will be provided to the DWQ Mooresville Regional Office, and the applicant
will take appropriate measures to prohibit downstream sedimentation of Stream 1 during
construction.
The proposed project has been designed to comply with the applicable conditions
specified by NWP No. 3 and corresponding 401 WQC No. 3494. Similarly, construction
activities at the site will be conducted in accordance with the aforementioned conditions.
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your acceptance
of this NWP No. 3 application. Your timely response to this PCN is appreciated; please
feel free to contact us if you desire additional information.
Sincerely,
S&M E
J ler, P.W.S. ichael Wolfe
Natural Resources Project Manager Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Review by Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.E., C.W.B., LEED AP
Attachments
5
COMPLETED PCN AND AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
09-0809
OF W~fF9
o? Qc
v

M ° T
Office Use Only.

Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification C Form
A. A Gcant Information
1. Processing '
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWO (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Dallas Lake Dam Repair
2b. County: Gaston
c
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Dallas- Li
2d. Subdivision name: N/A JUL 7 Z?U
2e. NC DOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A DENR-WATER CUAIITy
WETLANDS AND ST0g&gy
jj
,,
BP
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Gaston County Parks and Recreation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 00350649 and 00903197
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Gaston County Public Works
3d. Street address: PO Box 1578
3e. City, state, zip: Gastonia, N.C. 28053-1578
3f. Telephone no.: 704.862.7504
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page I of 11
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: Joey Lawler, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, N.C. 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704.523.4726
5f. Fax no.: 704.525.3953
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a . Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Parcel ID Nos. 3547-35-4281 and 3547-46-3086
1 b . Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.32223 Longitude: - 81.21122
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 98.06 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT to Long Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 11-120-(0.5)
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area is a portion of Dallas Park. According to the Standard Classification System for the Mapping of Land
Use and Land Cover, the project area and vicinity consist of the following Land Cover categories: 41 - Broadleaf
Deciduous Forest Land, 52 - Inland Water Bodies, 53 - Linear Drainage, 1.09 - Public Assembly, Recreational, Cultural,
and Entertainment, and 312 - Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
There are no wetlands located within the project area. It is unknown if wetlands are present within the remainder of the
park property.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
One stream (Stream 1) is located within the project area. The length of Stream 1 within the project area is approximately
21 linear feet. The length of streams present within the remainder of the park property is unknown.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a corroded corugated metal pipe (CMP) outlet and riser structure that were originally installed in Dallas Lake in
1977 with a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and riser.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
To conduct the proposed work, the lake level will be lowered to an elevation sufficient to safely replace the existing CMP
outlet and riser. A temporary coffer dam will be constructed around the existing riser such that the work can be
performed in drier conditions. The water will be pumped to a temporary sediment basin or silt bag on the downstream
side of the dam, where it will be allowed to sheet flow through an existing vegetated area into Stream 1. The existing pipe
will be removed by excavating the appropriate portion of the dam, with the material temporarily stockpiled on a suitable
high-ground location. The corroded CMP outlet and riser will then be replaced, and the excavated portion of the dam
restored. An existing riprap apron located at the outfall at the base of the dam will also be replaced with fresh stone. The
temporary coffer dam and erosion control measures installed during the work will then be removed. The work will be
conducted using industry-standard earth-moving equipment.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
Page 3 of 11
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.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Tern ora T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T U Yes
? No U Corps
? 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: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404 width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? ,
other) (feet) feet)
S1 [J P ® T Replace Riprap UT ® PER ®Corps

?INT
® 6 21
DWQ

S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 21
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ® T Dallas Lake Construction of Coffer Dam and Lake 0
18
temporary work space .
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.18
4g. Comments: The lake level will also be drawn down prior to construction. Replacement of the riser will allow the lake to be
restored to its original surface elevation (approximately 1.5 feet higher than its current elevation) when re-watered, resulting in
additonal surface area.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID
b Proposed use or purpose (acres)
num
er of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments: N/A
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
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: N/A
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts that are not necessary to facilitate its stated objectives. These
measures resulted in avoiding permanent impacts to Stream 1. No wastes, spoils, solids or fills will be placed within wetlands,
waters or riparian areas beyond the limits of those depicted in this PCN application. Appropriate sediment and erosion control
practices equaling those outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual" will be required as part of the project specifications that govern the proper design to meet appropriate
turbidity water quality standards.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
During construction, additional measures will be utilized to limit the impacts identified above. A silt fence outlet will be used to
aid in the prevention of silt fence failure due to excessive ponding of water behind the silt fence, and will be field-located
during silt fence installation at the site of concentrated runoff locations. Sediment and erosion control devices and planted
areas shall be inspected every seven days and after each rainfall occurrence that exceeds one-half (1/2) inch. Damaged or
ineffective devices will be repaired or replaced, as necessary, by the end of the day.
Temporary control devices will be removed once construction is complete and the site is stabilized. Seeded areas shall be
fertilized, reseeded as necessary and mulched according to the seeding plan to maintain a vigorous, dense vegetative cover.

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
? P
t t
i
li
project? aymen
o
n-
eu 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
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
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
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
I 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 Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? < 24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project involves replacement of CMP
outlet and riser under NWP No. 3.
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 government's jurisdiction is this project? Gaston County
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? 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 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
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: N/A
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.
N/A
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.
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes
No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes
? No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Review of the Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Virtual Workroom and
written correspondence to USFWS and NCNHP.
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?
Review of the South Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem Information Management Database.
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
t ? Yes ® No
s
atus (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?
Written correspondence with State Historic Preservation Office.
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: N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? N/A
-7 la Oq

Applican gent's rinted Name Applicant/A ent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: January 27, 2009
Project Information
b &ME
S&ME Project Name: Dallas Park Pond #12 Dam Rehabilitation Design
Type of Project: Dam Rehabilitation
Location: Dallas Park, 1303 Dallas-Cherryville Highway, Dallas, NC
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
C?,ASSo IA , NCG 2RDS3 I
( qr)L11 Qr 7 - W- ?a G'C
11D pt N
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273 I
704.523.4726 -
Authorization: I _ ?. on behalf of
(Contact Signature)
&f?STOtJ CAU?.J?Y hereby authorize
(Name of Landowner or Project Sponsor)
S&ME to act as agent with the USACE in connection with the above-
mentioned project.

j 1 L
1 t
,
?r
•
i rr ' 1
( 1 .- , • , .rte
f? uth Fork Cataw&
011 ?
I r Sport mart Dr_ ?` ? ?
Spencer Mc
s , _ 1
r ,.
'?? %B?sSet?er ?It• ?! '-,? ?__ ?,` i.arilc.
f\ L 1 i11 `\ 4 ufA''l-a 7 j j _ Jr1It
P I i ?
iQ
) (r
Approximate Project Location
t . _ 11
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ESRI STREETMAP USA DATASET (2000). PLEASE NOTE
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER 0 1
USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Mlles
SALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
aTE: 04-14-2009 SITE VICINITY MAP NO.
S&ME Dallas Lake Dam Repair
u?wN BY: DDH Dallas, North Carolina 1
DECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO:
1356-09-003 ,

CLA3 CNFR fr'i<._ a '.
I -.
P
t
r??
f
+ .-+ ??„? - Tic silt
f
• it ? f __ $i ' r ? A _
' _, ._../ ! ?• ' y 1 fir='? 'F L _ a ? °??`?+y,? '
r ; ? • ? PY?.PS? ? ? ` ?,? r ?,•-tom ? z _1 ??' `''+j" f
/ J F -r
s
Vt co
+ d f
ii J ?•
.?`w ?~ i/; r y 1 ? Yr''y, ?t `t _ ?: 1? ? ? - 7' ? y`•- f w ? a .x,11 _?v
i
Approximate Project Location
REFERENCE: USGS 1993 GASTONIA NORTH QUAD SHEET
THEABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM TH[NC] GASTON COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) -
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 500 1,000 1,500
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO t 1, Q i
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
CALE: 1" = 1,000' m FIGURE
ATE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP No.
04-14-2009
Dallas Lake Dam Repair
RAWN BY: DDH Dallas, North Carolina z
YSE
NECKED BY: L.1B PROJECT NO:
1356-09-003
.:... .... ...
'11- N
? ?- 4! Y
x # ;Xl &IV
s
11? S_
t tir? ,
Jfk
R - V 4 `
r
rip
N. 411 4.
t J ? .i arc
Approximate Location of the Subject Property
?raM .r } 9k r 'i
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE GIS LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE GASTON COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS °• ip' .t,',f' rd „`
(GIS) DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 5.250 500
-\ 750 .•r
DESIGN, r.-
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ,1-4
ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON . Feet
21j®r 4w
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
DATE: 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH No.
03.13.09 Dallas Lake Dam Repair
DRAWN BY: CAF ?. Dallas, North Carolina 3
-NECKED BY: LAB PROJECT NO:
1356-09-003A i
iviavz
CfB
CfB
MA/q/TF / l
MaE /' ??NCF f
CeB2 X" ,SFr
CfB/
CfD
CeB2
% ApB
HeB J /
W
'l
Dallas Lake Dam
j Project Area r? CfD
/ W
I a
MaB2, CfB
MaD2
eB
MaB2
MaD2
ApB
1
CfB: Cecil-Urban land complex, 2-8% slopes
MaB2: Madison sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, eroded
MaD2:Madison sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded
W: Water
REFERENCE: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET FOR GASTON COUNTY a MaB2
THE ABOVE GIS DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM USDA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO 0 150 300 450
GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
;ALE: 1" = 300' USDA GASTON COUNTY FIGURE
1TE: 04-14-2009 SOIL SURVEY MAP NO
RAWN BY DDH ''' Dallas Lake Dam Repair
,;-S&ME
w Dallas, North Carolina
1ECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO:
1356-09-003
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WERE DELINEATED BY S&ME PERSONNEL
ON 3-10-2009 USING TRIMBLE GeoXH GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB-METER
ACCURACY. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES HAVE NEITHER BEEN VERIFIED BY
THE USACE NOR SURVEYED BY A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR.
Coffer Dam
'j 1; ? N
tf?
1 d
1
0.18 Acres Temporary
Open Water Impacts
i
i f
a
Fw ,,
_ .V
; 'IV
t-?1 Corrugated Metal Riser and Pipe to be
Replaced with Reinforced Concrete
Riprap Wave Action Pad
to be Installed Above
Current Water Level
r
n
New Outfall Structure
to be Installed
Existing Sewerline
``?..
Proposed Riprap ?. ' ., , .
1 ' Apron Replacement """~---
Stream 1
Perennial RPW -?? Photo Locations
21 LF of Temporary Impact
Temporarily Impacted Stream
z Delineated Stream
l tl tl. Approximate Current Pond Level
}
Existing Contours
Excavation Contours
REFERENCE: Construction Silt Fence
THE ABOVE BACKGROUND LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE GASTON COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR
l P
Fi
d L
l
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. na
on
eve
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
Temporary Open Water Impact Area
SCALE: 1 ° = 40' FIGURE
)ATE: 6-23-2009 SITE PLAN NO.
S M
DRAWN BY DDH :` Dallas Lake Dam Repair
Dallas, North Carolina
:NECKED BY:
LJB PROJECT No: 1356-09-003
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

; -d 'te n !
a °? !
tip
AA
«W+°. "
IWO

2 View of Dallas Lake facing north.
s ' !k
4 View of embankment facing southwest.

5 View of Stream 1 at CMP outlet. 6 View of Stream 1 from CMP outlet.
Taken by: JoL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Checked by: LJB Dallas Lake Dam Repair
Dallas, North Carolina
M E
Date: 03-27-2009
Project No.: 1356-09-003A Photo Page 1 of 1

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION FORM
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: DALLAS LAKE DAM REPAIR
State: NC County/parish/borough: GASTON City: DALLAS
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.32223° N, Long. -80.21 122° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT TO LONG CREEK
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050102
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 21 linear feet: 6 width (ft) and/or 3 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section 1H.D.L only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and
and Section HI.D.I.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section M.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial now,
skip to Section M.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section M.B.I. for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section EII.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
o Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributarv Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: salamander habitat.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: Groundwater surface eleveation appears to be near ground surface.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: .
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
. ..
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: SEE ATTACHED STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS.
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 21 linear feet 6 width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: 3 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: DALLAS LAKE.
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: <0.05 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
® Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the CorpstEPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
..
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: GASTONIA NORTH, N.C. (1993).
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: GASTON COUNTY, 1989.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplam Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): SITE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 03.10.09.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: See attached information.
. .,A
DWQ STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORM
AND
USACE STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
.. s
FUSACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Gaston County 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (Joey Lawler)
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/10/2009 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:43:05am
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: South Fork Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Gaston
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.30908'N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 81.20272°W
Method location determined ? GPS ?Topo Sheet ?Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) vOther GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
Between reservoir outlet and aerial sewer line
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: dry
16. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, clear
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3 acres
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey:
10 % Residential 10 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40 % Forested 40 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 6 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 2.5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 40 Comments:
Evaluators Signature: Date: 3/10/2009
?f
This channel evaluation form is intended to hii used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
• i I' •
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# I CHARACTERISTICS E? COREGION POINT RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
*4
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access

a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4
-2
0 0
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
13 Presence of major bank failures
a
*4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rA 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0
-5
0-4
0-5 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
rHy
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

M
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
'
>:
' 19 Substrate embeddedness *
?
i
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA 0-4 0-4 2
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
>4 21 Presence of amphibians

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 40
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
l 4s 3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 3/10/2009 Project Dallas Park Dam
Evaluator: S&ME (Joey Lawler) Site: Stream 1
Latitude: 35.30908°N
Longitude: 81.20272°W
Total Points County:Gaston Other
Stream is at least intermittent 44.75 e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if t 30 J
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 24 Absent Weak Moderate a Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2
Active/relic oo pain 2
Depositional bars or benches 2
Braided channel 2
ecent aTTuvlal-cTeposlts - - - - 3-
a. Natural levees
10. Head cuts
11. Grade controls 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. mdrr-inaue aftones are riot rates; see afscussions to manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 10.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5
19. y ric soils re oxlmorp is ea ureS presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal= 1(1 9S )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 1
22. Cra ish 1
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0.5
25. Amphibians 1
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 1
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75
ncr rra cv cnu c r wcus urr the presence of upfana plants. Item ZV Tocuses on ine presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
l , r K
COPIES OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
t, 4 • 0
AT NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor UnVe?r II2R Ctor
Mr. Joey Lawler
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Subject: Dallas Lake Dam Repair; Dallas, Gaston County
S&ME Project No. 1356-09-003A
Dear Mr. Lawler:
Dee Freeman, Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nbis/public/gmap75_main.phtml>. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NIP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nconemap.com>, then click
on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"],
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <dataq(@ncmail.net> for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org NarthCarolilla
NW&WIlY
An Equal Opportunity X Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper Rutual Res frig wed Cawwtim
.. • • lb
+?o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Faves Perdue, Govemor Office of Archives and History
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. C--. Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
April 1, 2009
Neal McElveen
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Re: Dallas Lake Dam Repair, Dallas, S&ME Project 1356-09-003A, Gaston County, ER 09-0631
Dear Mr. McElveen:
Thank you for your letter of March 16, 2009, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
L"'- ?J'ALI-Ea'Dt
eter Sandbeck
Locatiow 109 East)oaes Street, Raltio NC 27601 Mat7og Address 4617 Mad Service Ceuta, Raleo NC Z W"4617 Tekphone/Faz (919) W7-65M/M7-6-599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH A vD WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
j60 Zii;fcoa Sueei
.- she\'f 1cc .arts CjroJ1na 21880)
April 14, 2009
Mr. Joey Lawler
S&ME. Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte; North Carolina 28273-5560
Dear Mr. Lawler:
Subject: Endangered and Threatened Species Assessment, Dallas Lake Dam Repair, west
of Dallas, Gaston County, North Carolina
In your letter of March 16, 2009, you requested our comments on the subject project. We
have reviewed the information you presented 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 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information you provided, Gaston County Public Works is proposing
repairs to a "low hazard" dam located at the Gaston County Park at Dallas. To complete
the repair, a portion of the lake will be dewatered which will result in temporary impacts
to the stream below the dam. Your client is applying for a Nationwide Permit No. 33 for
the proposed activities.
Endangered Species. According to our records and a review of the information
provided, no listed species or their habitats occur on the site. Therefore, use 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.
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
E c . -
staff at 828/258-3939; Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project,
please reference our Log Number 4-2-09-264.