20130008 Ver 1_401 Application_20130113

CWSI
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDWQ — Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
20130008
Date: 12 -31 -12
CWS Project #: 2011 -2791
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
ff ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
DATE COPIES DESCRIPTION
1 12/31/12 5 Application for Water Quality Certification No. 3820
2 12/31/12 1 Application Fee Check ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted
®For your use ❑Approved as noted
[]As requested ❑Returned for corrections
❑For review and comment
❑Resubmit copies for approval
[-]Submit copies for distribution
❑Return corrected prints
[]For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Cyndi.
Please find attached five copies of the Preconstruction Notification and application for Water Quality Certification
No. 3886 for the Caldwell Depot Road Extension Project. A check for the application fee is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
omas Blackwell, PWS
Project Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

i )CWS
December 31, 2012
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 26273
704 -527- 1177(v)
704 -527- 1133(fax)
Subject: Change in Applicant
Caldwell Station Crossing
Cornelius, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2011 -2791
Dear Steve:
On behalf of our client, the Town of Cornelius, North Carolina, we are resubmitting an application
pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14 to construction the extension of Caldwell Station Road to
Bailey Road in Cornelius, North Carolina. Due to economic circumstances, the Town of Cornelius is
now requesting this permit be authorized and acting as both the applicant and owner for the permit.
No changes to the proposed impacts are being proposed in connection with this reapplication.
Please don't hesitate to call me at 704 - 408 -1683 should you have any questions regarding this
application. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Z"rl C— Aka;;,-
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
Attachment:
Revised Nationwide Permit Application dated, December 31, 2012
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
W W W.CWS4NC.NET

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Caldwell Station Crossing Project
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Town of Cornelius POC: Mr. Anthony Roberts, Town Manager
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Cadwell Depot Road, Cornelius, NC
6. Subdivision Name: Caldwell Station
7. City: Cornelius
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.453116° Long: W80.8572140 (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Cornelius, NC, dated 1996
11. Waterway: Caldwell Station Creek
12. Watershed: Santee (HU# 03050101)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
Prepare File Folder
AID:
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
Begin Date

L J;)CWS
December 31, 2012
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 -527 -1177 (office)
704 -527 -1133 (fax)
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDWQ — Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 14 and
Water Quality Certification No. 3886
Caldwell Depot Road Extension
Cornelius, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2011 -2791
The Caldwell Depot Road Extension Project is located in the towns of Cornelius and Huntersville,
North Carolina (Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map). The project site is approximately two acres in
extent. The Town of Cornelius has contracted with Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide
Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. On behalf of our client, CWS is submitting this
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form and documentation pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14
for linear transportation projects and a Water Quality Certification No. 3886.
Applicant Name: Town of Cornelius — POC Mr. Anthony Roberts, Town Manager
Mailing Address: 21445 Catawba Ave., Cornelius, NC 28031
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: (704) 892 -6031
Street Address of Project: Waterway: Caldwell Station Creek
Basin: Santee (HU# 03050101)
City: Cornelius
County: Mecklenburg
Tax Parcel ID numbers: Portions of 00535295, and 00535103
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.4531161, W80.8572140
USGS Quadrangle Name: Cornelius, NC Quadrangle, dated 1996
Project Background
The project is located adjacent to the existing Caldwell Station subdivision in Cornelius, North
Carolina. The purpose of the project is to build a connector road from Caldwell Depot Road to Bailey
Road. The project is necessary to increase access for emergency vehicles and school buses into the
northwestern portion of the subdivision to nearby Bailey Road. This extension of Caldwell Station
Road will reduce the response times for emergency vehicles, as well as, school bus travel times and
fuel expenses. In accordance with Town of Cornelius current policies, the project will improve
"connectivity" and improve "life safety ". This connection is shown on the Bailey Road/HWY 21
Small Area Plan as it appears on the following page.
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Caldwell Depot Road Extension December 31, 2012
Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Water Ouality Certification No. 3886 Application Proiect No. 2011 -2791
MLD ROAW WY 21 SMALL AREA PLAN 11ASiER PLAN
__
MM OF CORNELMS
Current Land Use
The project area is approximately two acres in extent and is comprised of vacant land adjacent to an
existing subdivision of single family residential properties, with maintained lawns and yards. The
project area is crossed by a large power transmission right of way. Dominant vegetation within the
project area consists of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), goldenrod (Solidago altissima), and Japanene honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey Map, attached),
on -site soils consist of Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (CeB2), Cecil sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (CeD2), Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HeB), Monocan
Soils (MO), and Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (PaE).
Cecil sandy clay loam exhibits moderate permeability. Helena sandy loam exhibits slow permeability.
Monacan soils and Pacolet sandy loams exhibit moderate permeability. Cecil sandy clay loam, and
Pacolet sandy loam are well drained soils. Helena sandy loam is moderately well drained. Monacan
soils are somewhat poorly drained. Both Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Monocan soils
are listed in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County as having hydric
' United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2

Caldwell Depot Road Extension December 31, 2012
Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Water Ouality Certification No. 3886 Aonlication Proiect No. 2011 -2791
inclusions2. Monacan soils ( hydric criteria 2B3, 4) and Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
( hydric criteria 2B3, 4) are listed as hydric soils on the National Hydric Soils List3.
Jurisdictional Determination
On February 1, 2012, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, PWS and Kelly Hines delineated
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is
defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual°, with further technical guidance
from the Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Interim Regional Supplements, dated July 2010. A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of non jurisdictional upland areas has been enclosed (DPI).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D-
shaped dip net taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel
changes classification) within each on -site stream channel. A NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet representative of Stream A are enclosed (SCP1).
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there is one jurisdictional stream channel (Stream
A) located within the project area (Figure 3, attached). Stream A is identified as Caldwell Station Creek on
the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Figure 1, attached). Caldwell Station Creek is a tributary to
McDowell Creek, is located within the Santee River basin (HU# 03050101)6 and is classified as "Class C"
waters by the NCDWQ. On -Site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Feature
Jurisdiction
SCP
No.
NCDWQ
Steam
Classification
Score
USACE
Stream
Assessment
Score
Approx.
Length
Linear Feet
(it)
Approx
Acreage
(ac.)
USACE/EPA
anos
Classification
Intermittent/
Perennial
Stream A
RPW
Perennial
SCP1
L_
34.5
I
42
213
0.02
---
On -Site Total:
213 ±:�
0.02
Perennial RPW s
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are
capable of supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes each on -site
Perennial RPW stream and the field observations supporting these determinations.
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Servioe,1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -MRCS North Carolina
State Office, Raleigh
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010. 2010 National Hydric Soils List by State
° Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
S US Army Corps of Engineers, July 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
6 "HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
3

Caldwell Depot Road Extension December 31, 2012
Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Water Ouality Certification No. 3886 Application Proiect No. 2011 -2791
Stream A (Caldwell Station Creek) flows southwest through the center of the project area for
approximately 213 linear feet (Figure 3, attached). Stream A was evaluated to be a Perennial RPW
and exhibited strong bed and bank, strong flow, moderate sinuosity, substrate consisting of coarse
sand, and an average ordinary high water width of four feet. Biological sampling within Perennial
RPW Stream A revealed a weak presence of macroinvertebrates and moderate presence of algae.
Perennial RPW Stream A scored 42 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and 34.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification
Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, attached). Approximately 90 linear feet of Perennial Stream
A, underneath the power -line easement, is currently lined with rip rap. Photographs A and B (Figure
3, attached) are representative of Perennial RPW Stream A. An Approved Jurisdictional
Determination form for Perennial Stream A is included as RDP1.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 31, 2012 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would
be affected by the project. A letter dated February 17, 2012 was received by the SHPO stating, "We
have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed ". CWS also consulted the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission database and found no listed properties
within the project area.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on January 31,
2012, to determine the presence of any federally- listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or
critical habitat located within the project area. In a response letter dated February 8, 2012 the NCNHP
stated that "The NCHP has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservationtmanaged areas at the site nor within 0.55 -mile of the project
area. However, there is an NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program easement, of 20.66 acres, located
about 0.55 mile downstream (west) on Caldwell Station Creek ". This letter has been attached to this
permit package for your files.
In addition, the NCNHP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and
Element Occurrence (EO) database was reviewed for a listing of EOs of endangered or threatened
species within or near the project area. The EO database identified no endangered or threatened species
within a 1.5 -mile radius of the project area.
Purpose and Need for the Project
This project's purpose and need is to improve "life safety" and "connectivity" within the Caldwell
Station Subdivision. This project will decrease emergency vehicle response times to the existing
Caldwell Station subdivision by providing a necessary connection to Bailey Road which will increase
access to Highway 21 and Highway 115 (Figure 1, attached). Additionally, by increasing
"connectivity" and providing multiple pathways for ingress and egress, school buses, deliveries, and
commuter traffic can reduce travel times and fuel consumption, as well as, decrease emissions from
vehicles waiting in stop and go traffic leaving the subdivision during busy times. This project is
necessary to maintain the "Quality of Life" of the Town of Cornelius and continue to attract future
residents. On behalf of our client, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14 for Linear Transportation Projects and Water Quality
Certification No. 3886.
4

Caldwell Depot Road Extension December 31, 2012
Nationwide Permit No. 14 and water Ouality Certification No. 3886 Aoolication Proiect No. 2011 -2791
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3886.
Impacts to the bed of the existing channel have been avoided wherever possible. Permanent impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be limited to approximately 149 linear feet of culvert. The channel
is currently lined with rip rap under the powerline right -of -way. The proposed stream crossing will occur
in this rip rap lined section, thus avoiding impacts to higher quality stream sections. The bottom of the
proposed pipe will be buried in order to maintain aquatic life passage.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. total 149 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts (Figure 4, attached). Impacts are the result of the installation of approximately 149 linear feet of
72" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to accommodate the proposed road crossing. A profile view of the
proposed pipe is included as Figure 5. Proposed project impacts are summarized in Table 2, below.
1)
Table 2. Summary of Im acts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Intermittent
NWP
Temporary / Permanent
Approx.
Feature
/ Perennial
Impact Type
No.
ate
`,fin
Acreage
h
RPW Stream A
Perennial
Culvert
14
1491f (Permanent)
0.01
Stream Impacts (Total)
1491f
0.01 acre
On behalf of the Town of Cornelius, CWS is submitting a Pre- Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31, (enclosed) and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit No. 14.
5

Caldwell Depot Road Extension December 31, 2012
Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Water Ouality Certiflcadon No. 3886 AnOcation Proiect No. 2011 -2791
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 149 linear feet of perennial
stream channel. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704 - 408 -1683 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this permit application.
joatw
mas Blackwell, PWS
Project Scientist
462—Ck'Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
Enclosures: Figure 1. USGS 7.5- Minute Cornelius, NC Topographic Quadrangles
Figure 2. USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 3. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 4. Proposed Impacts Plan
Figure 5. Proposed Impacts Profile
JD Request Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 14
Agent Authorization Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCPI)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCPI)
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP 1)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (RDP 1)
Agency Correspondence
cc: Mr. Anthony Roberts, Town Manager
Mr. Dave Hughes, DR Horton
Ms. Cindi Karoly, NCDWQ
6

FAIL
CONCRETE
WINGWALL
D. R H OR TON
//A& WALE: I 40 w w CADLWELL STATION
inch 40 It. CHARLOTTE, NC
SUMMIT ��� BY
SUMMIT LAND SERVICES, PC
EIN IM S - PLAHMM - SURVEYORS
P,0. BOX 7442 CHARLOM NC 28241
LAND SERVICES, PC Pit (704) 504 -1717 FA34 (704) 504 -1125
EXHIBIT SHEET 1
DRAWN BY: DKR SCALE: 1 " =40' 1 DRAWNG NUMBER
BY: DKR (DATE: 01 -27 -12 11 of 2

10' PEDESTRIANBIKE
�Vr •V YV
BURIED BELOW
STREAMED
SUMMIT �RE BY
SUMMIT LAND SERVICES, PC
E401NMRS — PLANNERS — SURVEYORS
P.Q BOX 7442 CHARLOTTE, NC 28241
kND SERVICES, PC Pw mo um -1m vA10 (7o4) um -firs

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: December 31 .2012
COUNTY Mecklenburg County. North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT —2 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Caldwell Depot Road Extension
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Town of Cornelius
POC: Mr. Anthony Roberts at (704)- 892 -6031
21445 Catawba Avenue
Cornelius, North Carolina 28031
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann. PWS at 704527 -1177
550 E Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On -going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Road Connectivity Project 1
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) Figure 1. USGS 7.5- Minute Cornelius, NC Topographic Quadrangles
(X) Figure 2. USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X ) Figure 3. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
(X) Figures 4 & 5. Proposed Impacts
(X) Pre- Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 14
(X ) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1)
(X ) USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
A2n C.
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS

otWATr4G
0
o <
Offioe Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification C Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Toyes
® 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 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:
Caldwell Depot Road Extension
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Cornelius
2d. Subdivision name:
Caldwell Station
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Caldwell Station Home Owners Association, Inc
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
26300 -782
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address:
919 NORLAND RD
3e. City, state, zip:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no..
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Town of Cornelius
4b. Name:
Mr. Anthony Roberts, Town Manager
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Town of Cornelius
4d. Street address:
21445 Catawba Avenue
4e. City, state, zip:
Cornelius, NC 28031
4f. Telephone no.:
(704) 892 -6031
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 527 -1177
5f. Fax no.:
704- 527 -1133
5g. Email address:
gregg@cws- inc.net
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Portions of 00535295, and 00535103
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.453116 Longitude: - 80.85721
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
2 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Caldwell Station Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Santee (HU# 03050101)
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 approximately two acres in extent and is comprised vacant land adjacent to and existing subdivision of
single family residential properties, with maintained lawns and yards. The project area is crossed by a large power
transmission right of way. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), goldenrod (Solidago altissima), and
Japanene honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
213 linear feet of perennial stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
This project's purpose and need is to improve "life safety" and "connectivity" within the Caldwell Station Subdivision. This
project will decrease emergency vehicle response times to the existing Caldwell Station subdivision by providing a
necessary connection to Bailey Road which will increase access to Highway 21 and Highway 115 (Figure 1, attached).
Additionally, by increasing "connectivity" and providing multiple pathways for ingress and egress, school buses,
deliveries, and commuter traffic can reduce travel times and fuel consumption, as well as, decrease emissions from
vehicles waiting in stop and go traffic leaving the subdivision during busy times. This project is necessary to maintain the
"Quality of Life" of the Town of Cornelius and continue to attract future residents. On behalf of our client, CWS is
submitting a Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 14 for Linear Transportation
Projects and Water Quality Certification No. 3886.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve the construction of a road crossing over Caldwell Station Creek. Approximately 149 linear feet of
Caldwell Station Creek will be piped with 72" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to accommodate the proposed road
crossing. A plan view and profile of the proposed pipe are included as Figures 4 and 5. The bottom of the pipe will be
burried to ensure aquatic live passage. Proposed project impacts are summarized in Table 2. A track hoe and other
typical construction equipment will be used to construct this project.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
I Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
6. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Corps
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P [IT
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ 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 ® P [IT
72" CULVERT
Perennial RPW
Stream A
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4
149
S2 ® P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 [:]PDT
❑ PER
❑ Corps
[:11 NT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
149
31. Comments: Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams total 149 If (0.01 acre) of perennial stream.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P
04 ❑P
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
6. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed. then complete the chart below.
Pond ID
number
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5d. 5e.
Stream Impacts (feet) I Upland
Flooded I Filled I Excavated I Flooded I Filled I Excavated I Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
51. 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.
Project is in which protected basin?
6b. 6c. 6d.
Buffer impact
number — Reason
Permanent (P) or for
B1 ❑P ❑T
B2 ❑P ❑T
B3 ❑P ❑T
61. Comments:
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible. Proper sediment and
erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All work will be constructed in the dry
in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3886.
Impacts to the bed of the existing channel have been avoided wherever possible. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. will be limited to approximately 149 linear feet culvert. The channel is currently lined with rip rap under the
poweriine right -of -way. The proposed stream crossing will occur in this rip rap lined section, thus avoiding impacts to higher
quality stream sections. The bottom of the proposed pipe will be buried in order to maintain aquatic live passage.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible. Proper sediment and
erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All work will be constructed in the dry
in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3886.
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 Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. 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 E] No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project is a road transportation
connectivity project
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?
Cornelius
❑ 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
6. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /stateAocal) 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)?
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)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is a connectivity project and will not result in additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

b. 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?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on January 31, 2012, to determine the
presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response letter dated February 8, 2012 the NCNHP stated that, "The NCHP has no record of rare species,
significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas at the site not within
0.55 -mile of the project area."
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http: / /sharpfin .nmfs.noaa.gov /website /EFH— Mapper /map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 31, 2012 to determine the presence
of any areas-of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. As of the date
of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet been received. A letter dated February 17, 2012 was received by
the SHPO stating, "We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed ". CWS consulted the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission database and found no listed properties within the project area.
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
Foyes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
A71- C • 7k'�--�—
12 -31 -12
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Anthony Roberts, representing the Town of Comelius,'hereby certify that I have
authorized Gregg C. Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf
and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request
for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
azzoA't-C
Applicant's si a Agent's signature
12,1 8 tz-
Date
10/29/12
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

NC IDWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: z, I ., 2O t Z
Pro)ectlSite:j U,. J Wj;., %
Latitude: W W.4,5-3)14 0
Evaluator: 'T's
County:
Longitude: (,)&V.$S ?Z1g6
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent
Stream Determination (cir e o
Ephemeral IntermitterTiReiiannial 4
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
If3
if t 19 or erennlal If t 30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i K )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. rrffle -pool, step -pool,
d le- of sequence
0
Gq
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Activalrelict floodplain
0
Yes
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
cup
2
3
B. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Y s = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= _10 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
ri V
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
CD
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based ev(dence of high water table?
I No = 0
Yes
3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= 6*5- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
CD
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Town of Cornelius 2. Evaluator's Name: Thomas Blackwell, PWS & Kelly Hines
3. Date of Evaluation: 2 -1 -2012 4. Time of Evaluation: 9.00 AM
5. Name of Stream: Caldwell Station Creek 6. River Basin: Santee (HU# 03050101)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 318 acres 8. Stream Order: second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): Site located at the end of Caldwell Depot Rd on the
northwest side of Train Station Dr.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.4531160. W80.8572140
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: dry, cool, no rain in last 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast. 500
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? e NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1.14 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map ?Q NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey ?(D NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 40 % Residential 40_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
20 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) -X -Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight 3C 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): 42 Comments: rip rap lined under powerline right -of -way
Evaluator's Signature , le W Date 2/1/2012
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 in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05103. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
extensive A;—h— — = 0 no dischaz es =max oints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
1
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
0
Q"
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
ii
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• laze adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
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)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
1
fine homogenous = 0• laze diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
a
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max oints
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
2
or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shadin vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
0
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
y,
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max oints
G7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
Ono
evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of
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
1
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
42
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Caldwell Station Crossing city /county: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 2/1/2012
Applicant/Owner: Town of Cornelius State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range: Cornelius, NC
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Let: N35.4531160 Long: W80.8572140 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map unit Name: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (Ce132) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V ✓
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Area is representative of a non jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primaly Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were present at the sampling point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) ° Cover Soecies? Matus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Saoling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua 5 No FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sampling Point: DP1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
5
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species
x2=
1. Andropogon virginicus
10
No
FAC
2. Rubus argutus
40
Yes
FACU
3. Panicum sp.
20
N/A
-
4. Solidago altissima
20
Yes
FACU
5. Lonicera japonica
10
Yes
FAC
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Sampling Point: DP1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of
Multioly by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
100 =Total Cover Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 it in
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Less than 50% of the dominant species are FAC or wetter.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: oP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % _ Tyoe Loci
Texture Remarks
0 -5 2.5YR 4/6 100
Slit loam
5 -12 10YR 5/3 100
Silt loam
'T e: C= Concentration D =De letion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muck (All 0) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,146)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
No Indicators of hydric soils are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

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): Februray 1, 2012
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Perennial Stream A
State:North Carolina County /parish/borough: Mecklenburg Count City: Cornelius
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.453116° , Long. 80.857214° �.
Universal Transverse Mercator. NAD 83
Name of nearest waterbody: Caldwell Station Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Santee HUC 03050101
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): February 1, 2012
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There 0kre j "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 Ar "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): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 213 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or 0.02 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: tablished by O Wi
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. 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 TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section DI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections M.A.1 and 2
and Section IRMA.; otherwise, see Section III.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 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.11.2 for any onsite wetlands, and-Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. 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: Pick Lis
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through ick Lis tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are
'ck
river miles from TNW.
Project waters are
'ck Lis
river miles from RPW.
Project waters are
'ck L'
aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are
'ck 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:
`Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
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 TributaMr Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man - made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Has been ditched and straightened.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes:
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: Poorly developed riffle pool complexes.
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: 'ck Lis
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 'ck Lis
Describe flow regime: Discrete and confined.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: 'ck L' Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Lis . 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
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ 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/chamctmistics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply);
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation linestchanges in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water is clear, with iron oxidizing bacteria present. .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: sediment.
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 took for indicators of flow above and below the break.
1bid.

(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:
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: Palustrine Forested.
Wetland quality. Explain:.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: hik Lis Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ick L' . Explain findings:
❑ 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) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 'ck Lisq river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 'ck Lis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
'
Flow is from: ck Lisf.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ick L' 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: Water is clear. Some iron oxidizing bacteria is present. Watershed consists of agricultural
land and some forest land..
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Forested, 50 ft wide.
❑ 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: k Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? QM Size (in acres) Directly abuts? ffM Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: These wetland provide habitat for
ampibians as well as providing nutrient and sediment capture services.
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:
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 WATERSIWETLANDS 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 (11), 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: Stream A (Caldwell Station Creek) flows southwest through the center of the project area for
approximately 213 linear feet (Figure 3, attached). Stream A was evaluated to be a Perennial RPW and exhibited strong bed
and bank, strong flow, moderate sinuosity, substrate consisting of coarse sand, and an average ordinary high water width of 4
feet Biological sampling within Perennial RPW Stream A revealed a weak presence of macroinverdbmtes and moderate
presence of algae. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 42 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and 34.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial

status (SCPI, attached). Approximately 90 linear feet of Perennial Stream A, underneath the power -line easement, is currently
lined with rip rap. Photographs A and B (Figure 3, attached) are representative of Perennial RPW Stream A. .
❑ 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 HI.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 213 linear feet 4 width (ft).
® Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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: 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 .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):to
°See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IH.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook
"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HO for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Mewrandurn Regarding CWA Act Jurist dlon Following Rapanos.

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:
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
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.
s . A r - ;_ § 1_..
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:Comelius, 1996, North Carolina Quadrangle.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs,February 2012.
[3 Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:

[j Applicable/supporting case law:
[� Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

KNEW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall
Governor Director
February 8, 2012
Ms. Sarah Singleton
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject: Caldwell Station Crossing; Cornelius, Mecklenburg County
CWS Project No. 2011 -2791
Dear Ms. Singleton:
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 project site nor within 0.55- mile of the project area. However, there is an NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program easement, of 20.66 acres, located about 0.55 mile downstream (west) on Caldwell
Station Creek. This tract lies on the east side of NC 73. There is a chance that construction from the project could impact
this easement area, with sedimentation. Thus, it is very important that proper sedimentation controls are in place during
the construction phase of the project.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.nenhp.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 /public /virtual_ workroom.phtml >. The user name is "guest" and the
password is your e-mail address (see instructions on log -in screen). You may want to click "Help" for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 707 -8603 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
-�J" �
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
Mailing address: 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Location: 217 W. Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27604
Phone: 919 - 707 -8600 Webpage: www.oneNCNaturally.org
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
None Carolina
A Rtl��'
Natural Resources Plonnmg and (oraervatlon

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation office
Ramona M. Butos, Administrator
Bevedy Eaves Perdue, Governor
Unda A. Carfisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crmv, Deputy secretary
February 17, 2012
Sarah Singleton
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resource
David Brook, Dxector
Re: Caldwell Station Crossing, Cornelius, CWS 2011 -2791, Mecklenburg County, ER 12 -0171
Dear Ms. Singleton:
Thank you for your letter of January 31, 2012, 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 trade 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 ccmment,
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,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location tog East Jones street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Md Srrvice Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - [570/807 -6599