20121151 Ver 1_401 Application_20121212

-- Kimley -Horn
-and Associates, Inc.
__ - -- - Transmitta[
Suite 440
- 20M South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
20 1 2 1 1 _5 1 - - - -- 28203
- - - — -TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Date: December 21, 2012 Job Number: 018536008
Project Name: – Stormwater Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood Lane
To: Karen Higgins
NC DWQ, Wetlands, Buffers,
OEM
1
404 /401 Pre- Construction Notification Package (NWP#3)
1
Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
2
PCN Application Fee Check
2
12/21/12
3
1650 Mail Service Center
3
12/21/12
4
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
LR! :
12/21/12
T-1
CD -R Full -Size Plan Sheets
- QMALJffV
4 MEIVM b Branch
ench
W are sending these by
[:] U.S. Mail ® FedEx E] Hand Deliver
- - - r-1 other:
We are sending you r�
®Attached Under separate cover via i 7f�* pg items:
E] Shop Drawings ❑ Prints/Plans Samples Specifications ❑ Change Orders
® Other: 404 /401 Pre- Construction Notification Package (NWP#3)
Copies Date No. Description
5
12/21/12
1
404 /401 Pre- Construction Notification Package (NWP#3)
1
12/21/12
2
PCN Application Fee Check
2
12/21/12
3
Full -Size Plan Sheets
3
12/21/12
4
Half -Size Plan Sheets
1
12/21/12
T-1
CD -R Full -Size Plan Sheets
—These are transmitted as checked below:
® For your use EJ Approved as submitted Resubmit Copies for approval
As requested ❑ Approved as noted ® Submit Copies for distribution
For review and comment [I Returned for corrections ❑ Return E] Corrected prints
– Remarks:
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 704 -409 -1802.
Copy to: File
Page 1
Signed
s Tinklenberg,WPIT

Page 1
Kimley -Hom
.and Associates, Inc.
- O l ' C
- Transmittal
Suite 440
2000 South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
- -Date: December 21, 2012 Job Number: 018536008
- Project Name: - Stormwater Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood
Lane
To: Karen Higgins
NC DWQ, Wetlands, Buffers,
Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
We are sending these by
❑ U.S. Mail ® FedEx ❑ Hand
liver
❑ Other:
We are sending you
®Attached ❑ Under separate cover via
the following items:
❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints/Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Change orders
® Other: 404 /401 Pre- Construction Notification Package (NWP#3)
Copies Date No. Description
5
12/21/12
1
404 /401 Pre- Construction Notification Package
3)
1
12/21/12
2
PCN Application Fee Check
2
12/21/12
3
Full -Size Plan Sheets
3
12/21/12
4
Half -Size Plan Sheets
1 1
1221/12
5 1
CD -R Full -Size Plan Sheets
These are transmitted as checked below:
® For your use ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit EJ
Copies for approval
❑ As requested ❑ Approved as noted ® Submit ElCopies
for distribution
❑ For review and comment ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return
Corrected prints
Remarks:
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 704-409-18
02.
Copy to: File Signed
s Tinkle
ribergWPIT

20 1 2 1 15 1
Can Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
December 21, 2012
Mr. Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 -5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWQ, Wetlands, Buffers,
Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Re: 404/401 Permit (Nationwide 3) Application
Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Lane
And Leatherwood Lane
Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, NC
Dear Mr. Kichefski and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, the Town of Harrisburg, Kimley -Horn and Associates,
Inc. (KHA) is submitting the enclosed joint Section 404/401 Preconstruction
Notification Application for the above referenced project for your review
pursuant to a Nationwide Permit #3 and General 401 Water Quality Certification
number 3883. This application is to replace/upgrade two undersized piped
stream crossings that are in poor physical condition. The following information
is included as part of this application submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Agent Authorization
• Pre - Construction Notification Form
• Project Site Figures
• Figure 1 — Vicinity
• Figure 2 — USGS
• Figure 3 — SSURGO Soils
• Figure 4a — Carving Tree Lane JD Features and Improvements
• Figure 4b — Leatherwood Lane JD Features and Improvements
• Drawings for the TOWN OF HARRISBURG Storm Water Improvements
• Project Site Data forms
o USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
o NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
• Project Site Photo Pages
• USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
■
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Suite 440
2000 South Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203

[:=Fl Wrnley -Horn
101 and Associates, Inc.
The project areas are located near the intersections of Leatherwood Lane and
Boulder Creek Lane and Carving Tree Lane and Boulder Creek Lane in the
Town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Existing land use in the
vicinity of the project includes single family residential development and
undeveloped forested land.
The 404 /401 (NWP 3) application presents site conditions evaluated by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff (Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT) on September
16, 2012. The stream delineation was performed by utilizing survey prepared by
a licensed surveyor (verified by KHA).
The proposed project seeks to upgrade an existing 72 -inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
(CMP) at Carving Tree Lane to a 7'x 6'reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC)
adjacent to a 7' x 4' RCBC. Triple 36 -inch CMPs will be upgraded to a 7'x 7'
RCBC adjacent to a 7' x 5' RCBC at the Leatherwood Lane crossing. Both
crossings are designed based on geomorphic measurements and with a primary
box to match bankfull width with a second box set at bankfull elevation for high
flows. Rip -rap dissipation will be replaced at pipe outlets to the minimum extent
necessary to reduce discharge velocity and meet non - erosive design criteria. The
project will result in permanent impacts to 75 linear feet of a perennial RPW and
requires 127 linear feet of temporary impacts to install impervious dikes, a pump -
around to allow work "in the dry", and temporary shoulder berms for maintaining
neighborhood access /traffic control.
Please feel free to contact me at (704) 409 -1802 if you have any questions, or if
additional information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
Environmental Analyst
Attachments
Cc: Derek Slocum, Town Engineer
Town of Harrisburg, NC
4100 Main Street, Suite 100
Harrisburg, NC 28075

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Drive and Leatherwood Lane
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Town of Harrisburg
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Leatherwood Lane and Boulder Creek Lane, Carving Tree Drive and Boulder Creek
Lane
7. City: Harrisburg
8. County: Cabarrus
9. Lat: 35.33061 Long: - 80.66841 (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Harrisburg
11. Waterway: Unnamed Tributary to Mallard Creek
12. Watershed: HUC 03040105 / Yadkin 03 -07 -11
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request (Mitigation Proposal)
The following information will be completed by the 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
Keywords:
OELC 282012
L11

©Kffn* -Hom
and Associates, Inc Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Drive and Leatherwood Lane
Applicant Name and Address:
Town of Harrisburg, NC
4100 Main Street, Suite 100
Harrisburg, NC 28075
Telephone Number: 704- 455 -0728
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP # 3) ❑ Indivic
® Jurisdictional Determination ❑ Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans ® USGS Map
❑ Agent Authorization ® Delineation Sketch
❑ Data Forms (Up & Wet) ® NCDWQ Stream Forms
❑ NCEEP Confirmation ® Aerial Photo
❑ Agency Correspondence ❑ Other:
lual Permit Application
® NRCS Soil Survey
❑ Delineation Survey
® USACE Stream Forms
® Site Photos
❑ Other:
Check if applicable: ❑ CAMA County ❑ Trout County ❑ Isolated Waters
❑ Section 7, ESA ❑ Section 106, NHPA ❑ EFH
❑ Mitigation Proposed (❑ NC EEP ❑ On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Other)
County: Cabarrus Nearest City/Town: Harrisburg
Waterway: UT to Mallard Creek
H.U.C.: 03040105
Property Size (acres): 1.0
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.33113 ON
River Basin: Yadkin: NCDWO 03 -07 -11
USGS Quad Name: Harrisburg
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 0.045
- 80.66848 °W
Project Location: The project areas are located near the intersections of Leatherwood Lane and Boulder Creek lane and
Carving Tree Lane and Boulder Creek Lane in the town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
Site Description: The watershed is predominately residential developments and undeveloped forested land. Roughly 25%
of the watershed is occupied by impervious streets, open land/agricultural land, and onen waters.
Impact Summary (if applicable): The project will result in 75 linear feet of permanent impacts to an Unnamed Tributary
to Mallard Creek and requires 127 linear feet of temporary impacts to to install measures to allow work "in the dry ".
NWP
#
Open Water
(acres)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream Channel
Intermittent and /or Unimportant
Aquatic Function
Perennial and /or Important
Aquatic Function
Temp.
Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Tem
Perm.
Tem .
Perm.
If
ac
If
I ac
If
ac
If
Ac
3
127
0.02
75
0.01
Total
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
0.01
Kimley -Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
Direct Number: (704) 409 -1802
Email: chris [e-mail]
■ ■
2000 South Boulevard Ste 440 TEL [phone]
Charlotte, North Carolina FAX [phone]
28203

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Derek Slocum
Address: 4100 Main Street, Suite 100
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood
Date: December 19, 2012
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Steve Kichefski
Field Office: Asheville
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
The Town of Harrisburg hereby designates and authorizes Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. to
act in their behalf as their agent solely for the purpose of processing of Section 404 permits and
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications and to furnish upon request supplemental
information in support of applications, etc. for the Storm Water Improvements Project at Carving
Tree Lane and Leatherwood Lane from this day forward until successful completion of the
permitting process or revocation by the Town of Harrisburg.
Authorized this the 19 day of December 2012
Town of Harrisburg
Authorized Representative
(Print Name)
CC: Karen Higgins
NC DWQ, Wetlands, Buffers
Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1650
Town of Harrisburg
Authorized Representative
(Signature)

of watFq
� r
O c
20121 15 1
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
ED Section 404 Permit ❑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 DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
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:
Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood Lane
2b. County:
Cabarrus
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Harrisburg
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
N/A (Town of Harrisburg Permanent Drainage and Temporary Construction
Easements)
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Town of Harrisburg
4b. Name:
Derek Slocum
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Town of Harrisburg, NC
4d. Street address:
4100 Main Street, Suite 100
4e. City, state, zip:
Harrisburg, NC 28075
4f. Telephone no.:
704 -455 -0728
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
dslocum @harrisburgnc.org
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Will Wilhelm P.E.
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley -Horn and Associates
5c. Street address:
2000 South Boulevard, Suite 440
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
Be. Telephone no.:
704 -333 -5131
5f. Fax no.:
704333 -0845
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):
N/A (Town of Harrisburg Permanent Drainage and
Temporary Construction Easements)
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.33113 Longitude: - 80.66848
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
1.0 acres (Permanent Drainage and Temporary
Construction Easements)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Unnamed Tributary to Mallard Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Mallard Creek - C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin; NCDWQ Subbasin 03- 07 -11; HUC 03040105
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 areas are located near the intersections of Leatherwood Lane and Boulder Creek Lane and Carving Tree
Lane and Boulder Creek Lane in the town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The project areas are primarily
forested and located within the existing road right -of -ways. Existing land use in the vicinity of the project consists of
predominantly residential developments and undeveloped forested land. Roughly 25 % of the watershed is occupied by
impervious streets, open land/agricultural land, and open waters.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
NA
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
—246 If
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to replace/upgrade two undersized piped stream crossings that are in poor physical
condition.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project seeks to upgrade an existing 72 -inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) at Carving Tree Lane to a 7'x
6'reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) adjacent to a 7'x 4' RCBC. Triple 36 -inch CMPs will be upgraded to a 7'x 7'
RCBC adjacent to a 7'x 5' RCBC at the Leatherwood Lane crossing. Both crossings are designed based on geomorphic
measurements and with a primary box to match bankfull width with a second box set at bankfull elevation for high flows.
Rip -rap dissipation will be replaced at pipe outlets to the minimum extent necessary to reduce discharge velocity and
meet non - erosive design criteria. The project will result in permanent impacts to 75 linear feet of a perennial RPW and
requires 127 linear feet of temporary impacts to install impervious dikes, a pump -around to allow work "in the dry", and
temporary shoulder berms for maintaining neighborhood access/traffic control. Equipment will consist of excavators,
wheeled backhoes, asphalt pavers, and milling machines.
4. Jurisdictional Detenninations
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:
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:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
r :3 Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries El Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P [IT
❑ 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
[I Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
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 - Impact 1
(Carving Tree Dr.)
Installation of new
and additional
UT to Mallard
® PER
® Corps
8
28
®P ❑ T
Rip -Rap
Creek
❑INT
®DWQ
S1 - Impact 2
(Carving Tree Dr) .
Installation of
Impervious Dike &
UT to Mallard
® PER
® Corps
8
45
❑ P ®T
Temp. Shoulder
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
Berm
S1 - Impact 3
(Carving Tree Dr.)
Installation of
Impervious Dike &
UT to Mallard
® PER
® Corps
8
7
❑ P ®T
Temp. Shoulder
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
Berm
S1 - Impact 4
(Leatherwood Ln.)
Installation of new
and additional
UT to Mallard
PER
Corps
8
47
®P ❑ T
Rip -Rap
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
S1 - Impact 5
(Leatherwood Ln.)
Installation of
Impervious Dike &
UT to Mallard
® PER
® Corps
8
69
F-1 PO T
Temp. Shoulder
Creek
[I INT
® DWQ
Berm
S1 - Impact 6
(Leatherwood Ln. )
Installation of
Impervious Dike &
UT to Mallard
® PER
® Corps
8
6
El ® T
Temp. Shoulder
Creek
El INT
® DWQ
Berm
3h. Total stream and
tributary impacts
202
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
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P [IT
04 ❑P ❑T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete 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
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Rip -rap aprons at the culvert outlets are sized to minimize impact to the existing stream and riparian vegetation. The aprons
conform to the existing channel geometry.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
In the current design, the proposed culvert lengths match the existing culvert lengths. Because the impacted streets have no
outlet (dead end), temporary road closures and detours are not an option to maintain neighborhood access for residents.
Temporary shoulder berms are required due to the existing depth of the culverts and minimal road shoulder width. While
these do create a temporary impact, the only other feasible alternative would be to make the proposed culverts longer than the
existing culverts to create a shoulder wide enough adjacent to the existing road to allow traffic control phasing within (above)
the limits of the culvert. Therefore, the proposed design minimizes the permanent impacts to the maximum extent possible.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Pennittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0 % (No impervious added)
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Linear public transportation projects will
be required to treat stormwater runoff to the Maximum Extent Practicable in accordance with the practices described in
the NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. (No new development)
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
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
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
S. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 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 (federaVstate/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federallstate) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) r
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 Weiland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
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?
❑ 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?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Database; Pedestrian surveys performed by KHA staff biologists
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?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 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
❑ 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?
Correspondence with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
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: An individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to
Cabarrus County for review and approval prior to construction activities.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 5507 (Effective November 5, 2008).
Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT
�
12/19/2012
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only rf an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

A 1 ELL R 1,
3
16 73
Figure 1 29
21
i
BARR 01 �\
V
51 18
0 5 10 N
i
L J
Miles 74 O
�0-
611�
aa�a d
Riverview Dr
a
Leatherwood Ln 'Glee 0�
Ga�1r9
5�de
\age fir,
/crest' Dr
�✓ P /aza -Dr-
v Valhalla Dr -
Hudson Dr Morris Dr--- --
49 NC- 49lHWY -S
i�
- -- Oakley -Dr
Pkwy
o�
U,niversity_Rity_Blyd e
o-
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Legend:
QTown of 0 750 1,500 Project Areas
arrisbur I Feet I N _
North (- a
a�ahn

El
,r • 1 41k*
�lU
r.
0
IN
,P - - Al I S I-
Figure 2: USGS 7.5' Topographic Map - Harrisburg Quadrangle Legend:
��Town of 0 250 500 Project Areas
2
-6(/a rrisburpQ I ' 1 (Yvl
VorthCarolina" Feet
�I� NxYeK i„
arl A'su_t..,

glee pc
o
PoD I Poindexter loam. 8-15% slopes NEW

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Harrisburg 2. Evaluator's name: ChrisTinklenberg, WPIT
3. Date of evaluation: 12/18/2012 4. Time of evaluation: 3:30 am
5. Name of stream: UT to Mallard Creek 6. River basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate drainage area: 240 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75 ft.
& Stream order:
10. County: Cabarrus
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 35.329772 Longitude (ex -77 556611) - 80.668429
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GISCED Survey /GIS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): The reach
under evaluation is located south of Carving Tree Lane approximately 250 ft. west of the intersection of Carving Tree Lane and
Boulder Creek Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Replace/upgrade existing piped crossings and installation of new and additional rip -rap.
15. Recent weather conditions: Overcast. rainy and 50's
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 60 dearees and partly sunny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 85 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankf ill width: 8ft. 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4 -5ft.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep (>I 00/0
25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 64 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 12/19/2012
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 call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
Eco-re 'on Point Range an e
Score
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max ants
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
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)
rl
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0, springs, s s, wetlands, etc = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent noodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
3
no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
'y
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
06
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max rots
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelizahon = 0, natural meander = max rots
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition-- 0 little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
3
fine homogenous = 0 large, diverse sizes = max rots
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
3
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed &banks =max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
►a
r,
severe erosion = 0 no erosioA stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max rots
W
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
substantial im ct =0 no evidence = max rots
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well-developed = max points)
d
�"•
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat= 0, frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
2
>
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
Q
22
Presence offish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
�
no evidence = 0 common numerous types =max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max rots
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
64
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 12/18/2012
ams urg mprovem s
Project/Site: stream t
(UT to Mallard Creek)
Latitude: 35.329772
Evaluator: Chris Tmklenberg, WPIT
County: Cabarrus
Longitude: - 80.668429
Total Points: 45.5
Stream Determination uwwAw4jother
1
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennial
g Quad Name Harrisburg
if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 26
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1'. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thahNeg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uenoe
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
3
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
- artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal = 11.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Bioloav Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.6
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes:

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:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Cabamts City: Harrisburg
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.33113° 0, Long. 80.668480 ®.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 1983
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Mallard Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin/Pee Dee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
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 re n "navigable waters ofthe 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 ®r "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): r
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersZ (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: 246 linear feet: 8 width (fl) and/or 0.045 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 11987 Delineation Manus
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):'
❑ 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 TNWL If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HIM below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: n /a.
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent ": n/a.
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 III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.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 III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offske. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: cr
Drainage area: acre
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through lek Lis tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are
ick Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are
Ul river miles from RPW.
Project waters are
�'Ick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are
Iek Lis aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
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 Tributary Characteristics (check all that Up-1y):
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: ick Lie .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts 0 Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Highly eroding; Incised in most areas.
Presence of mn/riffle /pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pic k Lis
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ick Lis
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ick Lis
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: ick Lis . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick Lis . Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWlvib (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:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings/characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
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
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(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): ft.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatidwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
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. Explam:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: ick Lis . Explain:
Surface flow is: ick Lis
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow. ick Lis . Explain findings: Wetland is located at the toe of slope.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximi (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are ick Lis river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ick Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: ick Lis .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ick Lis 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:
❑ Aquatictwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any_
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: ick Lis
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 IRD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. 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.
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: NC DWQ Stream ID form ranks >30.
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 111. B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
®Tributary waters: 246 linear feet 8 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: UT to Mallard Creek is a P -RPW —246 LF flowing South to North.
3. Non -RPWss 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:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow 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- .15 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: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow 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 v
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary retrains 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 APPLV):lo
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:
gSee Footnote # 3
' 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 Corps/EPA 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 os lely 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
udgment (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: Kimley -Horn and Assoc., Inc.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Harrisburg Quad (1993).
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Caban-us County SSURGO Soils.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100 -year Flooi lain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 2010 NC Othoimagery.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site Photographs; September 16, 2012.
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: .

Photo Nee 1
1 '
{
4.
S1 — UT to Mallard Creek looking upstream from south side of Carving Tree Lane.
',j,
p
Z
$ ,44
f
S1 — UT to Mallard Creek looking downstream at Carving Tree Lane.
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood Lane Prepared By
Project
of Cabarrus County, North Carolina
�� rattn EW1
- uJG�CCIShUr Date Project Number Kimley -Hom
North Calohna and Assodates, IoC.
12/19/12 018536008

rnoro rage L
S1 — UT to Mallard Creek looking upstre;
.r?' �i � ` I� •fit.
m from south side of Leatherwood Lane.
to
t
i $
S 1 — UT to Mallard Creek looking downstream at Leatherwood Lane.
Title
Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project
Storm Water Improvements at Carving Tree Lane and Leatherwood Lane
Prepared By
.!/' Town of
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
CO F1
�
(
Date
Project Number
Kimley -Hom
North Candina
12/19/12
018536008
and Assocyates, Inc.