20100632 Ver 1_401 Application_20100810

Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100 Since 1985 Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Fax: [phone]
e-mail: rgoldsteinCdRJGAcarolina.com website: www.riv-acarolina.com
26 July 2010
NC DWQ - Mooresville Regional Office
Surface Water Protection Section
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
t?
20100632 JUL282010
Dear Sir or Ma'am:
Please find enclosed; seven copies of the Pre-Construction Notification Form and request
for approval to utilize GP 3819, and the required fee of $240.00.
A courtesy copy of this application is also being forwarded to the Corps of Engineers for
their records.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or to request additional information.
Regards,
Christopher Hopper, CFM
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
[phone]; fax [phone]
chopper (Zrjgacarolina.com
CC:
Mr. Steve Chapin, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Chris Tester, P.E., Salisbury - Rowan Utilities
J&R@qoVlq
11G 3 2eio
AND 3 WATER oUAU
WETLANj; rr
Owi?iR8RWp1
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments *Environmental Impact Studies • Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream
Buffer Delineations • 404 - 401 Permits • Water Quality Monitoring 0 Stream & wetland Mitigation and
Restoration 0 Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring • Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans •
Water Intakes & Reservoirs • Water Lines & Treatment Plants • Sewerlines & Wastewater Treatment •
Instream Flow Analyses • Interbasin Transfer Certificates • Lake Management & Watershed Modeling •
Archaeological Surveys and Testing • Solid Waste Landfills • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments •
Parks & Greenways Planning 0 CWMTF Grant Applications
t
)
r ,
20100632

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
AIR U 1, 1
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number: 3819
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 N No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Martin Luther King Ball Field Sewerline
2b. County: Rowan
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Salisbury
'
-
2d. Subdivision name: 11
N/A U
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
?LAlY(jsrER pU
3. Owner Information i9 "Ch
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Salisbury
3b. Deed Book and Page No. BK 0628 PG 0933
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. Chris Tester, P.E.
3d. Street address: One Water Street
3e. City, state, zip: Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
I

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Consultant
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Christopher Hopper
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address: 1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 018 207
Latitude: 35.65320432 Longitude: -
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 80.47965027
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 9.48 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Town Creek (High Rock Lake Tributary)
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is owned by the City of Salisbury and maintained as a community park with recreational facilities including,
playground, tennis, and baseball fields. Town Creek, a perennial tributary of High Rock Lake (Yadkin River Basin 03-07-
04) forms the property's southern boundary.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.04 acreswere observed on the property. However, most of the property will not be impacted by the project as
proposed, and formal delineations of the entire site were not conducted.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,480 linear feet. This includes 560 linear feet of unnamed tributary outside the project area, and 920 linear feet of Town
Creek (most of which lies outside the project area).
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this sewer realignment is to eliminate a problem with surcharging in the current alignment. The existing
sewer line is outdated and under the City of Salisbury's municipal Ball field. Due to the age, and location of the existing
sewer, Salisbury-Rowan Utilities is proposing to realign the sewer line to a larger sewer outfall across Town Creek.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed sewer line will consist of 5 new manholes, approximately 609 Lf of 10" ductile iron pipe, and a creek crossing.
Due to the elevation of the existing tie in outfall, a bore under town creek is not possible. Salisbury-Rowan Utilities is
proposing to make this crossing by open cutting Town Creek and pumping water around the open cut during construction.
Once the pipe construction is complete the stream bottom and banks will be replaced back to original condition, and
stabilized with Rip-Rap.
See attached description and photographs.
Page 3 of 11
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?
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
Comments: The owner does not dispute that Town Creek is a
perennial stream. No wetland impacts other than a man-
made drainage ditch will result (none are needed).
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: Robert J. Goldstein and
Name (if known): Christopher D. Hopper Associates, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Final JD application has been completed and is attached to this application.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ® T Open Trench Drainage Ditch ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.002
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.002
2h. Comments: The wetland ditch was installed during construction of the existing railroad on the property. Open trenching to
cross this feature will be temporary. Pre-construction contours will be reestablished and no permanent impacts will result.
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 ®T Open Cut Town Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 27 30
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 30
3i. Comments: Due to the elevation of the stream bed and sewerlines, drilling is not possible.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ? T None
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 None
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 you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ? P ? T None ? Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See attached.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See attached.
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

pro
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: None
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 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8of11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Five new manholes (ca. 200 sq.ft.) will
be the only new impervious surface associated with this project (608 feet in length, 30 foot wide temporary corridor).
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? Salisbury
® 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
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ® No
Comments:
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.
see attached for complete discussion. Briefly; the project is providing a new connection aimed at eliminating sanitary
sewer overflows. There will be no new service area, and no lines are being upsized.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater will be generated by the proposed project. Wastewater ultimately reaches the Salisbury-Rowan WWTP
(Permit N00023884), which utilizes activated sludge treatment and UV disinfection. The plant has a permitted capacity of 20
MGD.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ?
Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
RJG&A reviewed the USFWS endangered species list maintained online at hftp://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htmi.
No Critical Habitat has been designated in Rowan County. Only two USFWS Endangered Species occur in Rowan
County, bald eagle and Schweinitz's sunflower. No habitat for either occurs in the project area. Based on NCNHP July
2010 data, the closest record of one of these species (Schweinitz's sunflower) is more than two miles northeast
(downstream) 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 Essential Fish Habitat Mapper; hftp://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?
None. The site is previously disturbed and maintained as a public recreational park. No structures occur along project
alignments.
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: The new sewerline will be installed below grade. Two manholes
will be located in the floodplain. Both will be sealed and vented to an elevation above the 100-year flood.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? http://floodmaps.nc.gov/fmis/MainMap.aspx
l2 hri s- oPlner Popper

RAG+A 2.(n
Y
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
MARTIN LUTHER KING BALL FIELD SEWER
PCN ATTACHMENT
The Salisbury Rowan Utilities Department (SRU) is proposing to realign an
existing sewer to eliminate problems with surcharging. Roots and debris
within a portion of the system, coupled .,
with awkward alignments and gradual Photo I
slopes under the Martin Luther Kin MILK ?{ , ..
Ball Field have created a `bottleneck' andry
resulted in numerous overflows. These
overflows are intercepted by an existing'`
drainage ditch that parallels an existing rail road, and discharges into Town Creek. T -? y
r ?cs??;?%S.r
Photo 1 was taken on 06 July 2010. Evidence of recent overflows (debris)
is visible for several hundred feet down the adjacent drainage ditch.
W. Approximately 750 feet downstream of
the ditch's confluence with Town Creek,
Photo 2 algal growth is excessive (Photo 2) and
indicates a water quality concern that
these periodic overflows may be
exacerbating.
In addition to unsightly debris and water
quality concerns near the municipal ball
field, odors have become the source of
complaints for area residents and users of the facility.
To remedy these problems SRU is proposing to realign a portion of this
sewer. A ten inch sewerline comes into the park from the west via the
manhole shown above. It serves a 95-acre area on the west side of the
rail road tracks (Figure 4). From here the existing sewer continues 490 feet
under the ball field, where it picks up additional sewer lines from the north
and flows east to the Salisbury WWTP.
SRU is proposing to retire the 490 foot connection under the ball field, and
redirect flows to an existing newer sewerline on the south side of Town
Creek. The new line will be ductile iron, the same diameter (10-inches) as
that being replaced, and 609 feet long. Five new manholes will be
needed. No new capacity or service area is being added as part of this
project.
The new alignment will follow the edge of the
existing ball field fences, as illustrated in Photo 3.
The red line illustrates the new alignment.
Temporary impacts to exercise equipment and
a paved walking trail will be minimal and limited
to construction. After the project is complete,
these facilities will be reinstalled and no
permanent impacts to the facility are
expected.
To reduce impacts to Town Creek and its
riparian areas, SRU is proposing to utilize an
existing cleared corridor through the trees.
Photo 4 illustrates the new line's location
as it approaches Town Creek. Clearing
will be minimized, and contractors will be
instructed to perform all work from the
existing cleared areas to the extent
practicable. An existing overhead
power line right-of-way will be crossed
perpendicularly as required by its owner.
The sewer will cross perpendicular to
Town Creek, and connect with an existing sewerline on the south side of
Town Creek (Photo 5). This line also
transfers wastewater to the Salisbury
WWTP. RJG&A Biologist Chris Hopper to 5
visited the project area on 06 July 2010
to conduct stream and wetland
delineations and search for cultural,
historic, and rare species concerns along
project alignments.
?y
?e
Two wetlands were identified in the project
area, and one stream crossing (Figure 2).
The first wetland (photo 6), a wetland ditch
that parallels the existing railroad corridor is a
manmade feature that is dominated by
rushes (Juncas), and Cattails (Typha). It is 2-3
k -, I
feet wide, and runs perpendicular across the construction corridor
construction is complete this feature will
revert to its pre-existing condition and
no loss of jurisdictional waters will result.
After
The second wetland (photo 7) occurs FRI
inside the tree line on the south side of
the ball fields and north of Town Creek.
This feature was not delineated in its
entirety, as it extends well beyond the
project area. The width shown in Figure
2 remains constant, but it extends
southwest to Town Creek and will not be impacted. This wetland is a
linear depression that begins immediately west of the construction
corridor. SRU staff are aware of this feature, and have agreed to install silt
fencing around it prior to allowing any ground disturbing activities.
One stream crossing will be required to build the project as proposed;
Town Creek (photo 8). The stream is a
perennial Class 'C' tributary of High Rock
Lake, and is 25 to 30 feet wide at the
proposed crossing. Because of the
elevation of the stream bed and tie-in
sewerline, directional drilling is not possible.
The crossing will be open cut, and after
completion the banks and bed will be
returned to pre-construction contours and
stabilized with rip-rap. The project will utilize
an existing thirty-foot wide clearing to approach the crossing to minimize
disturbance of riparian vegetation. Flows will be diverted via pump-
around during construction. Design engineers plan to construct the
crossing during the winter dry-season.
U
t c Z
N
J E
c U 7
oO
co a U
N c
ca C
cc a) 0
c U)
oY ?
o N
.
J co
n
m O
O c ++
dYU
0
NN
r ?
L
O

- ? L

- 41

?
r I ; r ?? l ? ,?'???'? ?f ? . 1 . , ? ( ? ? a? ?' i ? ? .. it ? •.\'` ? 7'
' ?
OA
- V
fV
f

i 44n, \.e

/

• J f
1,,
4W X 1 ?v
? 1 ``
? 7-
: A. 70
? ? Y
-c ? ii ? '•
? ???e ?. ;fir'
?__
? _w
? ?'? .. ti's M?(+'? - s ?.,1.? #T' ?? _ ?.
AN,
pow-
pow-`-r APT
___.?. ___ - --? '
,"°6's- '? ?. oz R` w'Y'"?,.:?wl..x.:.r.lik..?eer?+s-. -. - y? N ? C•4pj - J,.:
41
IV,
U rsa
sn'ou' .mgsges'W'u,.xr.
9344-BE9-bOL 6M?-Ot-(d-b-OS?H-N7INI y 35 0731J77V9 N7WI s??aroi??buuaa?n6 3 -MM N

rl
bbcez
?K
Xg aameS plalj Ileg 6uiN aayjnj ulpew
s zE -I
aa,
m I
a
'ti 99'80+9-00+0
e ngslleg
eu110re0 4]JON

ue
N
?
8
I oF
c
s
s
sell! n uemoH AingSlleS
-S :HNII

Ln
i
I
,
'
I

O
z ?

O I

Q I
U ?
Oo ' ? 3
J /

N Q L / p

s
,c O[
XQ
O 'L
i z
. a
a`on
?} I NO-°v spjO

12
t'
q0 ? ?,Sr co
s
z
oo a ?
?y .
a o uo .

Uo? _S -

-- --
----- - -go___
-?gg-?43 NMOl
J d_ _
\

O
z
O
Q
OO
lu
Q IL-
1
Ow
r
?O
QO
N
z w -
? ? U d IA
0
>wo-
y w°(N(???m?o5
o0,
N`nO KN
O
O
O
O
O
+
In
114

?
n
W
? z \
d d'
u
\
6)
U a z \
/
\ W t
\

N
\ U 4 O pl 11
?
1 \ _ ?

-

\ --
P
,
0
m j I 0

O
A Fza?
°
/
z0OZ 1 / Q? 04
/
oou -?
7
2"8

zQO 6, o, in
O
-931
I it e '7 //
P EI
`'
?
a
O I
/
z I / i /
ro?
O
Q oyo
Fao
V
3

-
N
} O
Z L p
68 J(

0<0

i
S \
ya \
cr)
000
/ °o
0
!?;; //?/ X40
r?
/ N m
/ o
U x
F-4 !J

Elevation

N
r-I
O
O
+
_ Agent Authorization Form
RE: SRU's 2010 sewer crossing of`Town Creek from Martin Luther King Ball Field,
south across Town Creek to an existing sanitary sewer line.
Salisbury Rowan Utilities (SRU) hereby authorizes Christopher Hopper with Robert J.
Goldstein and Associates, Inc (RJG&A) to act on our behalf and take all actions
necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of this permit or certification and
any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Project Owner (Responsible Party)
Authorized Signature:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Martin Luther King Ball Field Sanitary Sewerline. Salisbury NC Date: 06 Ju12010
Applicant / Owner: City of Salisbury, Salisbury Rowan Utilities (SRU) County: Rowan
Investigator: Christopher D. Hopper, Robert J. Goldstein and State: NC
Associates

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No C01111110111ty 10. 1:31,71
drainage feature
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: WTL
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: CA
(explain on reverse if needed
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Stratum
S
S Indicator
FAC+
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9. Toxicodendron radicans V FAC
10.
3. Ouercus phellos
4. Ulmus alata S
S FACW-
FACU+ 11.
12.
5. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 13.
6. Rubus arautus H FACU+ 14.
7. Carex lurida H OBL 15.
8. Lonicera Japonica V FAC- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland is a drainage feature. Storm flows run off from adjacent ball field and park area, and are
transported to Town Creek via Wetland CA.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam. 0-2% slopes Drainage Class: Somewhat poor
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluvaguentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-9 10YR 5/3
9>16 l OYR 3/1 5YR 4/6 40%
Hydric Soil Indicators:
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
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Martin Luther King Ball Field Sanitary Sewerline, Salisbury NC Date: 06 Ju12010
Applicant / Owner: City of Salisbury, Salisbury Rowan Utilities (SRU) County: Rowan
Investigator: Christopher D. Hopper, Robert J. Goldstein and State: NC
Associates
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: BLH
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X drainage feature
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID: UPI,
(explain on reverse if needed Plot ID: CA
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 9. Parthenocissus quinquefolia V FAC
2. Betula nigra T FACW 10.
3. Quercus phellos T FACW- 11.
4. Prunus serotina S FACU 12.
5. Cornus florida S FACU 13.
6. Ulmus alata S FACU+ 14.
7. Ju lag ns nigra S FACU 15.
8. Toxicodendron radicans V FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 56
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
NOTE: No herbs were observed. Poison Ivy covers the site, and no herbs were found in the impact area.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes Drainage Class: Somewhat poor
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colo rs Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 5YR 4/3
10->16 5YR 4/6
Hydric Soil Indicators:
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
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Location is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Martin Luther King Ball Field Sanitary Sewerline, Salisbury NC Date: 06 Ju12010
Applicant/ Owner: City of Salisbury, Salisbury Rowan Utilities (SRU) County: Rowan
Investigator: Christopher D. Hopper, Robert J. Goldstein and State: NC
Associates
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Ditch
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: WTL
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed Ditch
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Typha latifolia Herb OBL 9.
2. Juncas effusus Herb FACW+ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
x Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
X_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland is a man-made drainage ditch parallel to an existing railroad corridor forming the park's
western boundary.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: Variable
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5" 2.5Y 6/1
5->16" Gley 1 4/5G
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
X Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Soils are highly variable along the drainage di tch and appear to be comprised of numerous soil types. Sulfidic odor
was observed north of the proposed crossing.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Martin Luther King Ball Field Sanitary Sewerline. Salisbury NC Date: 06 Jul 2010
Applicant / Owner: City of Salisbury, Salisbury Rowan Utilities (SRU) County: Rowan
Investigator: Christopher D. Hopper, Robert J. Goldstein and State: NC
Associates
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Ditch
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: UPL
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Ball Field
(explain on reverse if needed
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Lawn H NI 9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are not Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Maintained ball field - mowed regularly.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: Variable
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
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
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No soil sample was taken adjacent to the wetland ditch. The site is maintained as a recreational field, mowed
regularly and containing baseball fields and recreation equipment. Sampling in this location would have damaged
the site.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Location is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: { o v 4 Z610 Project; SRO -row n A K-;,n Latitude: '3 5 (n ?J 2..? G O 5 ?
Evaluator: C tS? o?ppef- site: 1tN Longitude: -8Q.4MZ(oz
Total Points: Other St3_- &bUlr NC.
Stream is at least intermittent County: t
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 ??`? e.g. Quad Name: TS Mvn
A. Geomorp holo (Subtotal= 45 Absent - Weak ,' . ode rate " StrMq;
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 C3)
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel CO) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9° Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
-Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Suhtntal = P 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, S r
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2
03
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal= 1 q . S 1
20h. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2' 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.
25. Amphibians 0 0,5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 AV = 2. Other = 0
items eu ano n Locus on me presence or upiand piants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
?? Dig, S = ?2r?.YlR t ? rJ'tC'?rn
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):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Rowan City: Salisbury
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.65320432° Pick List, Long. -80.47965027° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
IMPACTS:
Wetland Ditch (78 square feet; 0.002 acre) Latitude: 35.65363927 Longitude: -80.48034558
Town Creek (30 feet long, 27 feet wide; 810 square feet, 0.02 acre) Latitude: 35.65276945 Longitude: -80.47931419
Name of nearest waterbody: Town Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: High Rock Lake (Yadkin River)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03-07-04
® 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): 06 July 2010
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "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 Pick List "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 30 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.02 acres.
Wetlands: 0.002 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
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 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 HIT.
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
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 III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and 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: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick I .ist river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
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 apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
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
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: 13
? 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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
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 Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List_ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
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:
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.
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: 30 linear feet 27 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 IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
0 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: Stream is perennial based on NC DWQ Stream ID Form, V. 3.1.
Q 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: 0.002 acres.
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.
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 IILC.
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): to
? 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:
'See 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.
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: Salisbury, NC USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
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):
? 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: