20090032 Ver 1_401 Application_20090109

I
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet 0 0- 0 0 3 2
Please provide the following info: PA I
1. Project Name 6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: CSWS; Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: 6025 Milhaven Lane Charlotte NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.30289° Long: W80.84485° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Derita, dated 1996
11. Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
12. Watershed: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3 kk),
General Permit
:,'.e
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
11? CWS
January 8, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones
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)
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3 and
Water Quality Certification No. 3687
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2522
The 6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project is located approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the
Interstate-77 - Sunset Road interchange in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, enclosed). The
purpose of this project is to replace and upgrade the existing driveway culverts at 6025 and 6017
Milhaven Lane. The existing driveway culverts are severely undersized and failing. Upgrading the
culverts will improve flow through an existing stream channel and alleviate property flooding and
safety concerns. Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) has contracted Carolina Wetland Services,
Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte Storm Water Services, Isaac J. Hinson, PWS
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-4495
Street Address of Project: 6025 Milhaven Lane, Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Irwin Creek
Basin: Catawba (HU# 03050103)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.30289°, W80.84485°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Derita, NC, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent
wooded areas. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of red oak (Quercus rubra),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba), pignut hickory (Carya glabra),
common blackberry (Rubus argutus), baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). According
to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County', on-site soils consist of Helena sandy loam (HeB) which is
a moderately well-drained soil. Helena sandy loam has been listed in the North Carolina Hydric Soils
List for Mecklenburg County as having hydric inclusions'.
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2 United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA-
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3
Jurisdictional Determination
January 8, 2009
I No. 2008-2522
On December 8, 2008 CWS's Thomas Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin investigated on-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. 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.3 There are no jurisdictional wetland areas within the project limits. A Routine On-Site Data
Form representative of non jurisdictional upland areas has been enclosed (DP1). A representative
photograph of on-site upland areas is included as Photograph A. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were
classified according to recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)4 and USACE
guidance. A NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, and
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form for 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 1, enclosed). Stream A is an unnamed tributary to
Irwin Creek. Irwin Creek is within the Catawba River basin (HU# 03050103)5 and is classified as "Class
C" waters by the NCDWQ.
Stream A flows northwest through the project area for approximately 210 linear feet (Figure 1,
enclosed). Stream A exhibited a moderate bed and bank, moderate flow, substrate consisting of silt to
fine gravel, and average ordinary high water widths of 1-2 feet. Biological sampling within the stream
channel revealed a strong presence of crayfish and a weak presence of macroinvertebrates. Stream A
was classified as a non-relatively permanent water (Non-RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance
(AJDF, Non-RPW Stream A). Non-RPW Stream A has a demonstrated Significant Nexus to
navigable waters due to the fact that it has more than a speculative or insubstantial capacity to carry
pollutants or flood waters to Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW). Non-RPW Stream A scored 32
out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 19.25 out of a
possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating unimportant aquatic
function (SCP1, enclosed). Photographs of Non-RPW Stream A are enclosed as Photographs B - F.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 5, 2009 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. The project is located in a residential subdivision; the occurrence of any area of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on January 5, 2009
to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. As of the date of this submittal, a response from NCNHP has
not yet been received.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The existing 18" driveway culverts at 6025 and 6017 Milhaven Lane are failing and need to be
replaced. The culverts are undersized and allow driveway flooding to occur during 10-year storm
3 Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 3.1.
5 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
2
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project January 8, 2009
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2522
events. The flooding prevents access to and from the homes which creates a safety hazard. The
culverts are also failing as evidenced by the sinkholes forming in the driveways (Photograph G - H,
attached). The driveways are the only access to and from the homes.
CSWS proposes to replace the 18" culverts with 42" culverts. This size is necessary to accommodate
the slope and still allow for CSWS to bury the culverts 1' in accordance with the USACE regional
conditions. The replacement culverts will be extended in order to construct shoulders on the up and
downstream ends of the driveways for safety reasons. In addition, 150 LF of stream channel
upstream, downstream, and in between the culverts will be regraded and stabilized. The purpose of
this project is to improve the flow through the driveway culverts, alleviate flooding, and improve the
safety of the driveways.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The grading/stabilization will be stopped at the shortest point as dictated by the channel's profile and
stability. The proposed culverts will be buried 1' below the existing stream bed to allow the passage
of aquatic life. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to
downstream waters. All work will be conducted in the dry.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable additional impacts to Intermittent RPW Stream A total 164 linear feet (0.006 acre) and
are the result of culvert extensions and grading/stabilization. The existing 24 linear foot 18" culvert at
6025 Milhaven Lane will be replaced with a 32 linear foot 42" culvert. The existing 22 linear foot
18" culvert at 6017 Milhaven Lane will be replaced with a 28 linear foot 42" culvert. The bottom of
both new culverts will be buried 1 foot. In addition, 150 linear feet of stream channel upstream,
downstream and in between the culverts will be regraded to a uniform 2 foot bottom with 3:1 bank
slopes, and stabilized with C-125 temporary matting on the stream banks and C-350 permanent
matting in the stream bed. A plan view and profile drawing have been included (Figures 2 and 3,
enclosed). Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1, below. On behalf
of CSWS, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with attachments in
accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 3 and Water Quality Certification No. 3687 (enclosed).
Table 1. Summary of Impacts to On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional Intermittent / Impacts
Feature Perennial Activity
Length (If)
Area (acre)
Culvert 14 if

Non-RPW
Intermittent
Extension
(Permanent) 0.0005
Stream A (Unimportant) Grading and 1501f
Stabilization (Penmanent) 0.0052
Permanent Stream Impacts Total 1641f 0.006 acre
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project January 8, 2009
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2522
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project has limited the amount of permanent impacts to 164 if (.006 acre) of
unimportant intermittent stream; therefore, no mitigation is currently being proposed for this site. The
new crossing will likely improve aquatic life movement.
Please do not hesitate to contact Isaac Hinson at 704-336-4495 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Isaac J. Hi son, PWS
Wetland Specialist
jo'&Ld
Thomas J. Blackwell
Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts (Plan View)
Figure 3. Proposed Impacts (Profile View)
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCPI)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCPI)
Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
Representative Photographs (A - H)
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
File
4
6025 Milhaaren ]Cane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-252_2
r ,? ' r- ? } gad 1? ? ?"
• I
r } _
Trutty pF ! _ y
Ch F
i
?:Z S,' _...
a ,q• ? `r! - y r'?? I ??...''? v .';115 •a s•? :y? I ' ~ 1 P
S t ?j s . r r .
K ?t
.?. 1`t \ r? ? . _.\ , Y755 11 • i ? +4 ? ' I i; ., '?y{ 1 ?',:i n? Rl'v / {'' M "
r} .?-, f :':. --.• _? ? ?? „"tom ??%?
its
`-ro !' ` Ir I r
n i cL a,. .^R? 1 1 vd 5_C3___v*_Ai EY Y1ffi s i C 7
1 „ .. •' r
aw'r'
°? ?It1TS[i1S XttIH$fj? J' - ?-1 ll
tt$rrr' .. Chi ? $tliteevilFC B,e?d k • 1 - T" fr,?;
tiilr 6.*W _ 3 ''.? "-.' ?,y '_• ?'. - . ? _ ? ??_,..- F 1l ^.`'/ .fit/r ?.
C9pp5 Hill .i.as •?, s n W? 1
t,r"? r ! Y ` '? - -Ate •• - 1
?? 5?' - ,,__„ 1 1 ?{,? __,1q? ' - r(,t!'e•`ept? r >. 1 ?} ??,r? i ,,Y
O• j.?,._q ? • I- S? `' .. r"t .lam _ r • M1 r
i;t
-;W4 Twin Lak
r _ t
r s I i ` ,
pW.F.asthSWnccraH,• `,. 4- k? ' --- ---?-* N9W VosdiYne.`i
TfaKftr g 1 r
?' • -r - -r..l
I? 790
.c Emmanuel: \ a 1` 7014
,-
- '5c
r0' 1.-. Off' r r¢ ? I ..-
1m2ge Courtesy of the U.S. Geoll gknl Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Derita Quadrangle, North Carolina, dated 1996.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
6025 Milhaven ]Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2003-2522

e _ - tf _i 3 VaB l
„
/ V
r=n8 _ Eno L C

i - ? Ca82 !I
CeB2 Hee Eno He8 /
a
- WR

Eno
- EnB cue ceuz?
(F- B
En6 6"ao jam kB C¢0'

d FnQ CeB2 J E116
Brockenbrough
r N B En6 Airport fe€Si
MO En
F? EnE (p Ceei
CeB2 4
Y V aB '
o 5 ?. L v[ ? - L
,
AC
o
LA;
\(}
'

c?
CeB_
l
r Vag
CED2
CeB2 Cee

kSed E {
?B +.J
{,a?2
?,r F_nB ?, CeD2
UaE
eCr.
`. C
to
6:ef
i
- .
f ,.?? = r B2 : L Fn-2 CeB2

,0 PaE
C<a
E

P 2 `--r En6.

Ur +la8 ce02 W - -"
-_-- PaE ?g
Cee2

'6.
B2 WkD
?
` 3p
C C MO r"
O

r, rup CeD2 r
Va8 ` - re62 ETTR m
` i

CeCS2
Ce82 HeB
J }Cr
raUL - -- - -
J Va CeD2

" LJL
En6
j
P aE 2
D2
j VaH . /
Ce82
• CeB2 CuH;
-
t -=
i
[;eB2
--
En6 En6 " - C.eD2
crater yif`B Dillons rr
`r OeB Vc [U -X111[44 Z _ E
ISJ
?

I41k8
Heo `
En Ce62 VaH HeB CeV Eno VaB
I,aB
EnFS -_ - -- - "a _ Ce62 0 ?

B CeB2 En6 ? HeBf"
?c<b n0
CUB r

J fvfF,H HeB
- En6 UL
UL EnB
J
J G r. VaB CeB' CeD2
(>D2
C.;P. Cet 2
!
1 /
SoU Survey Courtesy of the USDA-MRCS
MRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 4, dated 1976.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
i
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED AND CLASSIFIED N
BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC. ON DECEMBER 8, 2008. JURISDICTIONAL
FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
Non-RPW
Stream A
210 LF i
Existing 24 LF Culvert
(6025 Milhaven Lane)
r. CP1
j Existing 22 LF Culvert
(6017 Milhaven Lane)
i
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
j ) 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
CWS
a We PN Ps Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT
Figure 1. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2522
PREPARED BY DATE ? / CHECKED BY DATE
7 O ? C- 1171 o
Legend
Jurisdictional Stream Channel

00 00? - Existing Pipes
Roads
Project Limits
0 Parcels
Topography
Buildings
Photograph Location
and Direction

• SCP1 Stream Classification Point
• DP1 Data Point

50 25 0 50 Feet
i
I
1
- -°~ Non-RPW Stream A
t"
55 LF Impacted
(Grading and
602 Stabilization)
Non-RPW Stream A
70 LF Impacted
(Grading and
Stabilization)
601

Non-RPW Stream A
,, 25 LF Impacted
(Grading and
Stabilization)
I
J
l+?
r
Non-RP
8 LF Impacted
Extension)
(Pipe
?4.'?:.- rh1G
i
6 LF Impacted
(Pipe Extension)
E _.
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
CWS 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: DRAWING PROVIDED BY CHARLOTTE STORM WATER SERVICES.
Figure 2. Proposed Impacts (Plan View)
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2522
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
c.AA 117/61 31.7/0"%

Legend
•u..-.
* 400.Sf.J-J 306 :f GndA I/ ilAlYtJROP rpipesJ30306 Pf4SINS
en?pt Graff STREETS V pipestubs_0303% Q bktodn_2fx4
r+crses_Q3ES3t Grd-' nVen-In fOpps!3et Q inpe(V
1 Scale. 1'= 50'
"
'
'
, -sXWS_03t Y06 Gr 7 _'#1 t??X.Nh'L°SC pa;c ^!_rsx_!'15coFJg` `?
-
t• ;?, 7
;t r ? I s
i CL t
u
i
i
5

V M
ti
N
U!
N 0l-
m a
a) m
Cl) C:

Co
•? 3

r
Q
=5
G1 O O ? °
m
'a U L" N
N Mr
?
_ ?-C W
N V a -
a c
z. ca o oNo 'm
O
j > Z fA = O
a?
) ° ?

?-. o (
L
C N Y
U
W E 2 O Z U
W O
C)
• .a d Z ++
r
Lo cu <
? Ln L =
N J O
U U ; °QCOL
L-
?
?
LLI ° y
a cat
>
.?

U, a ?
z

?
?U W ?-
m?
Z °
W
W
uj
W 1

W
W
? ?
W t
?
a
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: Januaa 8, 2009
COUNTY Mecklenburg County North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT <1 acre
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Storm Water Services
POC• Mr. Isaac J Hinson PWS at [phone]
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte North Carolina 28202
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: maintenance )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
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) USGS 7.5-Minute Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X ) Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map (Figure 1)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Plan View) (Figure 2)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Profile View) (Figure 3)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
(X ) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
(X ) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (SCP1)
(X) Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP 1)
A
H
Ph
h
i
-
)
otograp
s (
(X) Representat
ve .
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Isaac J. Hinson, PWS
0 0- 0 0 3 2
r.1F ?A?tR
t
in
Office Use Only:

Olt, pit D Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form al
A. Applicant Information JAN 9 ; r
1. Processing
BEN?
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit

® 'NET± ANj° AND sT0P%AV%',JER F R
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality Certification No. 3687
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
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
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: 6025 Milhaven Lane
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: JEM Enterprises and Kenneth L Caldwell
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 20831-163 and 17356-954
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 6025 and 6017 Milhaven Lane
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC, 28269
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A

NICS
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: City of Charlotte
4b. Name: Mr. Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
4d. Street address: 600 East Fourth Street
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
r
Property Identification
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
. 041-204-08 and 041-204-07
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.30289'N - 80.84485'W
1c. Property size: <1 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Irwin Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The existing land use of the project area is residential with maintained lawns and small adjacent wooded areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
210 linear feet of Perennial RPW stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The existing 18" driveway culverts at 6025 and 6017 Milhaven Lane are failing and need to be replaced. The culverts are
undersized and allow driveway flooding to occur during 10-year storm events. The flooding prevents access to and from
the homes which creates a safety hazard. The culverts are also failing as evidenced by the sinkholes forming in the
driveways (Photograph G-H, attached). The driveways are the only access to and from the homes.
CSWS proposes to replace the 18" culverts with 42" culverts. This size is necessary to accommodate the slope and still
allow for CSWS to bury the culverts 1' in accordance with the USACE regional conditions. The replacement culverts will
be extended in order to construct shoulders on the up and downstream ends of the driveways for safety reasons. In
150 LF of stream channel upstream, downstream, and in between the culverts will be regraded and stabilized.
addition
,
The purpose of this project is to improve the flow through the driveway culverts, alleviate flooding, and improve the safety
of the driveways.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The existing 24 LF 18" culvert at 6025 Milhaven Lane will be replaced with a 32 LF 42" culvert. The existing 22 LF 18"
culvert at 6017 Milhaven Lane will be replaced with a 28 LF 42" culvert. The bottom of both new culverts will be buried 1
foot. Also 150 LF of stream channel upstream, downstream, and in between the culverts will be regraded to a uniform 2-
foot bottom with 3:1 bank slopes and stabilized with C-125 temporary matting on the stream banks and C-350 permanent
matting in the stream bed. A trackhoe and other standard construction equipment will be used for this project.

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?

4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other:
[4-d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Project Information and Prior Project History
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? El Yes ®No El 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 13
PCN Form - November 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 Constructi on
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 Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary T
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 ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? 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.
Stream impact 3b.
Type of 3c.
Stream name 3d.
Perennial (PER) or 3e.
Average stream width (feet) 3f.
Impact
length
number - impact intermittent (INT)? (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)

S1 ®P ? T Culvert
Extensio Non-RPW
Stream A
? PER ® INT
1.5
14
n
Grading
S2 ®P ? T and
Stabilizati Non-RPW
Stream A ? PER ® INT 1.5 150
on
S3 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S4 ?P?T ?PER' ?INT
S5 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
S6 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 164
3h. Comments: Permanent Impacts to Non-RPW St ream A total 164 If (0.006 acre)
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1:0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
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 individual) list all o en water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water
impact number Name of
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary T

01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction pro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. 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 an impacts require mitigation, then ou 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 (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
B1 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Permanent
impacts have been limited to 164 linear feet (0.006 acre) of unimportant intermittent stream channel. The
grading/stabilization will be stopped at the shortest point as dictated by the channel's profile and stability. The proposed
culverts will be buried 1' below the existing stream bed to allow the passage of aquatic life.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All
construction activities will be conducted in the dry.
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

? 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 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
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
Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. 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).
6d. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
? HQW
management programs (check all that apply)? ? ORW
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Charlotte
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ® Yes ? No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? `20% - No change in impervious
percent
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted ? Yes ® No
for each stormwater BMP?
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ®Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
t
S
? Yes ® No
ta
e
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval ?Yes F-1 No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
d
d
S
? Yes ® No
ar
s,
tan
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland
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.
N/A
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form -Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
6. 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 5, 2009 to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. As of the date of this submittal, a response from NCNHP has not yet been received. The NCNHP elemental
occurrence GIS layer (Updated 2007) was also consulted and indicated no elemental occurrences within two miles 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 5, 2009 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. The project is located in a residential subdivision; the
occurrence of any area of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance is unlikely.
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:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Map No. 37119C0126E
Isaac Hinson, PWS
Wetland Specialist 1/8/09
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
is provided.)
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 12/08/2008 Project: 6025 NMhaven Lane Latitude: N35.30289°
Evaluator: TJB & JCM Site: SCP1 Longitude: W80.84485°
Total Points: Other Non-RPW Stream A
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 19.25 Mecklenburg e.g. QuadName:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 4.5 ) Absent W Moderate Strong
13_ Continuous bed and bank 2,0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0.0 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.

0.0
No
= 0
Yes= 3
Man-mace aitcries are not rated: see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 6.0 1
14. Groundwater flovildischarge 0.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season 1.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitfer 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Biolow (Subtotal= 8.75 l
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3,0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae: periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
-29b . Wetland plants in streambed 0.75 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
hems _u and 2'1 Locus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or ?eletland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
SCP1- Non-RPW Stream A
DWQ#
13 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
AQ
1. Applicant's Name: CSWS 2. Evaluator's Name: Tom Blackwell and Jamie MacMartin
3. Date of Evaluation: 12/8/08 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Irwin Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 8 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 300 if
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Interstate 77 take the US-21/Sunset Road exit,
Exit 16A and turn right onto US-21/Sunset Road Travel approximately 01 mile and turn right onto Oakdale Road Travel
approximately 0.3 mile and end at 6025 Milhaven Lane.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.30289 ° W80.84485°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): maintenance
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 45 degrees, partly cloudy
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? YES NO If yes, estimate the mater surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 70 % Residential 5 % Commercial 5 % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 1-2' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight -Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown 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): 32 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature , 10 4XJ Date 12/8/08
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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCPI - Non-RPW Stream A
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE `
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max' oitzts 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges `
(extensive dischar es = 0; no discharges =,max points) - 5 0 4 -0 - 4 4
5 Groundwater discharge

U
(no discharge = 0: s rin s; seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0- 4 0-4 1
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lain = 0: extensive flood lain= max points) 0 - 4 0 4 0 - 2 0
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
CL (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0 -6 0--4 0--2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = max points) 0-5 0--4 0-3 0
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0 - 4 0--4 2

l l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
L (fine, homogenous = 0, lame, diverse sizes = max points) N`? 0 - 4 0 - 5 2

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
? (deep 1 incised = 0: stable bed & banks - max points) 0-5 0-4 0 5 3
*0 13 Presence of major bank failures'

*4.
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0 -' 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) u 0-4 0 4

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

H (no riffleslri p les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0 - 3 0-- 5 0-6 2
17 Habitat complexity

r„
(little or no habitat - 0: lre cent, varied` habitats - max points) 0- 6 0-6 0-6 1
l R Canopy coverage over streambed 0 5
x (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0 - 5 0 0
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure =' max NA* 0--4 0--4 0

20 Presence of stream invertebrates.
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous` types = max points) 0 - 4 0-5 0 - 5 2
21 Presence of amphibians

Q
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max
oints) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
p
22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence -max points) 0 - 6 0 - 0 - 0
Total Points Possible 100 too too

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
--T
I_

32
--

-_»-- -.??•?? w...J a.v? uoowoa.u m uVa3Lal SL1Gall1S.
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 I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 16, 2009
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project, Charlotte, NC -
Non-RPW Stream A
State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. N35.30289° N, Long. W80.84485° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Irwin Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® 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: January 16, 2009
® Field Determination. Date(s): December 8, 2008
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
? 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: 210 linear feet: 1-2 width (ft) and/or 0.007 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z 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).
' 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 III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; 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 IILD.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 waterbodya 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 offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 68 square miles
Drainage area: 8 acres
Average annual rainfall: 42 inches
Average annual snowfall: 5 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary flows to UT of Irwin Creek, flows to Irwin Creek, flows to Sugar Creek (TNW).
Tributary stream order, if known: I st.
a 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 anplv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: A portion of this tributary has been piped.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 1.5 feet
Average depth: 1.5 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
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: This is an unstable urbanized stream
system. Flow is flashy due to a high level of impervious cover in the waterershed.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: little to no riffle pool complex.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: Discrete and confined.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
® sediment deposition ?
® water staining ?
? other (list):
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
? 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):
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: watershed has a high level of urbanization. Single and multi-family residential properties are the predominant
land use.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: N/A.
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): forested; right side < 10 feet, left side < 10 feet.
? 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: Stong presence of crayfish.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? 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 Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YM 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:Tributary acts a
conduit to transport, water, sediments and nutrients from higher in the watershed to the TNW. The presence of a sandy substrate
helps to remove some polutants. Organic material entering the stream is also transported downstream, providing nutrients for
aquatic life.
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
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.
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:
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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: 210 linear feetl-2width (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.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? 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
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:USGS 7.5' Derita, NC Topographic Quadrangle,dated 1996.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Sheet No. 4, dated 1976.
? 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):see attached report.
? 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:
F
1" = 2.00 mi Data Zoom 10-6
www.delorme.com PAN (6J°W(A 2??? q 5 "i I
XMap® 4.0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 6025 Milhaven Lane Date: 12/08/08
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Storm Water Services County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Tom Blackwell & Jamie MacMartin State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPl
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Quercus rubra Stratum Indicator
tree FACU Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9 Sohdago sp. Herb -
2 Quercus alba tree FACU 10
3 Liguidambar styracijlua tree FAC+ 11
4 Carya glabra tree FACU 12
5 Rubus argutus shrub FACU+ 13
6 Baccharis hahmifolia shrub FAC 14
7 Lonicera japonica herb FAC- 15
8 Eupatorium capillifolium herb FACU 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
38%
Remarks:
Less than 50% of dominant s
pecies FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) _
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are not present.
Routine On-Site Data Formsl Page 1 of 2 1/5/2009
I
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Helena sandy loam, 2 - 8 percent slope ( HeB) Drainage Class Moderately Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Aq uic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 in. A 2.5Y 5/4 N/A N/A Sandy Loam
4-12+ in. B 10YR 6/6 5YR 5/6 many/distinct Sandy Clay Loam
10YR 6/1 few/prominent Sandy Clay Loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes XNo (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine On-Site Data Forms1 Page 2 of 2 1/5/2009
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2008-2522
Photograph A. View at DP 1, facing northwest.
Photograph B. View of Non-RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Project No. 2008-2522
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No. 3 Protect No. 2008-2522
Photograph E. View of Non-RPW Stream A culvert (6025 Milhaven Lane), facing upstream.
Photograph F. View of Non-RPW Stream A culvert (6025 Milhaven Lane), facing downstream.
6025 Milhaven Lane Maintenance Project
Nationwide Permit No 3 Project No. 2008-2522
Photograph G. View of sink hole over culvert at 6017 Milhaven Lane.
Photograph H. View of sink hole over culvert at 6025 Milhaven Lane.