HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080822 All Versions_Application_20080516?° = 1
•? aw:'?• ?;r? ggrc
CJ p?R !ry
!? . STATE of NORTH CAROLINA gRa,.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "?h
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 9, 2008
J U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
\ 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
?I
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Proposed replacement of a structure conveying an unnamed tributary to
Mango Creek on SR 2516 (Hodge Road) in Wake County.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
y? structure and widen the narrow and unsafe shoulders above the pipe ends (Figures 1 - 3).
WBS Element Number 5C.092014.
L
Impacts to Waters of the United States
G The project crosses a perennial stream, an unnamed tributary to Mango Creek,
[NCDENR-DWQ Index No. 27-32, Best Usage Classification C NSW; HUC 03020201]
(Figure 3) in the Neuse River Basin. The existing structure that conveys the creek is a 36-
inch concrete pipe with old rock headwalls (Photographs 1 and 2). The headwalls have
collapsed and the overlaying shoulder sections are failing. The NCDOT proposes to
replace the existing structure with at 87" x 63" metal pipe arch that is 60 feet long while
temporarily dewatering the work zone. This will involve the temporary placement of
impervious dikes in the creek upstream and downstream of construction. Once the stream
has been dewatered, the pipe will be replaced. Permanent impacts at the site associated
with the replacement of the structure and minimal amounts of rip rap to protect the
structure involve a total of 25 lft (15ft of surface water fill and IOft of rip rap armoring).
The work zone will be dewatered for approximately 1 day. Temporary impacts to the
stream from this activity will result in the dewatering of 25 lft of stream. The materials
used for dewatering will be removed after construction.
Fill in wetlands is also anticipated at this site. The construction associated with the
installation of the larger pipe and repair roadway shoulders and fill slopes will result in
2,828 ft'` (0.06 ac) of fill in wetlands along this unnamed tributary. (See Appendix One
for USACE Wetland Delineation forms/DWQ rating sheets).
Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Phone: (919) 220-4600 Fax: (919) 560-3371
SR 2516 (Hodge Road) - Wake County
Photograph 1. View from Site 1 upstream of pipe.
Photograph 2. View from Site 2, downstream of pipe.
\ w i
? s
/7 "N
V f
1 • y
4 TA
J? t 7
? is ? `/,1'?? l ????,? ;? ?,Ir??' '- :?.. :1--..
/Al
r
t ,
it C" / ` -.. ) .? ? ' .e t ?'\ /? /a .?"?
t
r 1(io
?
v \ bi T vsrr •1-?- , .; ? ? ?:.:.--' ?+-'rr ?t"-, %7??1 ?` 'asd..,\, 1 '?t
Pi f J 2 r a \ j M ( 1 ) ?. ) 7 t, ?> > -'"? r ' -.;:.1 . I• / _ j v
SITE 1 y/..
1
y?/'^?'?
_,\9 `" ? ;/ \* x30
Y 4? y
00 J 1I
?j ??.,--.?''^. j` .. -? ?1,?,f ?i ????' r`. t ,.`S??i yi,'M? w! ???4?' ;?I - '•y ? Ai '1 ??•'
r _
7'oli ` `t \iU?r +it J tll ? 1_ r :? ? r{ ?S ?? {.?`~ Y'+, r? ? ((C,?.?(
l
J { \ c - .? y? t• - j t? 1
7-
w.`=? / ?'?"? '?''"• / !' f {? 4" 1i ? fit, ._,
?.,tT^-.?'",?'l ?.?'' /? r/: ;r^?? f!?'' / ?j. ,,l+ ,lt ?\ O1_.?"' '? '.'(' s { ,i ?r?rl \\?,.
N',
??. /''' -' ?ts•-';?1 ? + ? ?? ???,---- "`? ?? ?f'', ,?"' ?' ? ? r? ?? ,. Syy(" ' ter..-? ? ?!.?,?J !`1 1r'? li ?? ? .? •>> rs?:
/ (14
i
Project Study Area
SR 2516 (Hodge Road)
a??µ , ` ?"R? l . t? __- ., 3f N'r?C Wake County
Raleigh East
USGS Topo Map (1968/1987)
? Figure 1 1:24,000
?ol, 1
' ?' tty r ? ?? f..? 1 -? ?? Al ?'"1 s Y -?i
a) \ +y
.1 rai}er Ra ?? C•','I t
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc.
Ro Co \ f / WnC ' L°C / wry. f LT5 Nab
Fab 1 I /.. Oe?/
fl Wn AP62
// ' WkE r •- d / ' $
/ ApD LoC
? ? VNkE - s r
Wr f a ApCT PQcti i:WaB -
°o ' wac j ` _
C- LoC Ap a.Pj1 I AD
P
APB ? \;
/ APD
Ng.A ?e
LoD QCA -AG'r+/aC
WgA c
i Crn
WaC,
Ft ?/ APD r" LY
Yx - ? \ .: ApC2
ApC2 ., Wa B
Wni
WaA r? "
ApC2 p ,
ApC2 WaE
PQ
Wn"? \`
r? ApC2
0
F ,
' r
f iti'aB ApC2:, Dub. Sow ;?? LoD
Y/ ARE / r r r kCh `a
Ft
Wo ; BOR p
; VVo
1 it ApD `-
i A
/ Wk[ qpp Ad
LoC
ApC2
rf APD ?` I i t?
M' APD l:oD \. ?`?
WB ApC2 -- LoD\
DuB ApB2-
LoD, s
a ?-- ` G I . 1 06. ApC. APCZ`??
WkEv
P Crt
<oe LOC 3 i
AfA. v y , 'I
LoD '
• ?.- ApD .? v Y r ?r v r ?. ?,.
r
Cn? ? -•--• ? ? - WmC2 "
./' ME >? n `° I ApC2.
`, ? > ApC2 , v
v.' LoD Dub r ApEi2t: f a
A v Ff r .ApC2 G<. - r.a
C 'LoD ApB2 v
?? v x," v', r Ap
WkE I Cti .v
Bu LoD Gti
Y ?? CeF°
fL?F ?? Me App r.
' WkE ?'e
Y
ApC2,; a?WkE
APC Co LO D rt
mBe
Wn qfA AU' Co p
APBr 1\.'r i.Kk
y pD _ `kmC
3F I PQ r ?
iVkE ` AP62 ar ;a WmB2
pC2x LbC '..
ApD DuU ApQ DuC2
DuB2 \ Cn : DuC --
WaB ,p s . DuB f DuB2 ... u
A
C \
P
_
WaC Pao
O
1
}
e
wy ' •_ DuS
ApD ?
.
? I
n / ApB2
O DuC2
\ , G
c \ APB ApC2
, n
C2
\ v
'
c Ap
-
I
C ? Ap
W YJo
ApC2 (
B2 I
,,.
Wo
a
? ,?.
<o
APD y • L i. ApC2 `.
,94 VJY ?. ? • ? \
i ApC2 „
APC ?Wo • / - 6uC2 L°D \ A
fo
ApD
V p
wkE ApB2
`
\ Lob O LoC
WY ApC2 I_ + ApC2 LoC
? ? '?` LoD v Ap82 A' p
P APD
ly v.,? I _ LoD •
,
?
? ,
_ VaC2
ApC2 Kn
L
D
ApC2: APC A
C2 I
o
p SITE I p
LoD ?a. :a. ;?
n
LOC
? tOD w ym,,
W Q ? r y
=
? r nqJ
/ VYY C0
'
:. ..
ApC2
" \ ApC2\
APD•
WkE, ApB
:
T a
bDC
' t
2
,
ApB2
?., ,\
j..`` ? ..
?: ? AP62
•.
., / •
? ?4\:. \ ?•
-'\
94`
Al-
x
ApC2 WY --•-- -.
DuB
LoD
/ VaCZ ApB2 N(JY ApB2
DuB
Cn .j ApB2 Dub 0 .
a u
v
ApB2
v VaB2' t
ApC2 DuB VaC2 -ApC2
Ap8 Cn
Wh
APC. - i
i Cn
? f y VaB2 APB
B2 Ce .
Wn
4
+ Cn
a
( k G
?F
? u W
I' mC2
Ap82
ApB2 c VaB2 Va'C2
W
E
?. ApC2 r
x
m
? VaC9* /
r
Cl
32 O
??--W N
ti
Note:
Proposed Rip Rap
- E T F Existing Transporation Facility
® Proposed fill in Surface Water
0 Construction Zone
Proposed fill in wetlands
dewatering limits within marked construction zone
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
Site I - Construction Plan
SR 2516 (Hodge Road)
Wake County
Figure 3 lin = 30ft
05/06/08
'k
?r'p. rap ,? ? ti
-loft SW gill 0 co
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11 -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CO
5ft? ?5ft±SW fiI) co
W
N
ETF
;S?, ZI N N
-rip?rap
J I± de*wateri 4 Iim
E T F
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Pen-nit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Pen-nit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested
NWP 3 and NWP 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Division 5, J.W. Bowman
Mailing Address: 2612 N. Duke St. Durham NC 27704
Telephone Number: (919) 220-4600 Fax Number: (919) 560-3371
E-mail Address: wbowmangdot.state. nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page I of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity snap
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable snaps are provided.
1. Name of project: Proposed replacement of a structure conveying an unnamed tributary to
Mango Creek on SR 2516 (Hodge Road) in Wake County.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): WBS Element 5C.092014
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh take US 64 ByPass
East towards Zebulon. After you cross the Neuse River bridge, exit onto Hodge Road and
travel north approximately 0.4 mile to project site.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum):
Sitel: 35.7735 ON 78.5238 "W
6. Property size (acres)
0.2 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT to Mango Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Sites are surrounded by agricultural land and wooded areas.
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: So that
the shoulder sections and associated fill slopes can be repaired, the NCDOT will replace the
existing pipe with a larger pipe that is 15 feet Ion g rRip rap will be added to the pipe ends
for armoring. The NCDOT will also dewater the work zone during construction. Equipment
may include excavator, backhoe bulldozer, grader, and crane.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing pipe is undersized and the old rock
headwalls have collapsed causing the over lag shoulder and roadway fill slopes to fail. The
new pipe will facilitate improvements to the cross line.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date pen-nits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued pennits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe pen-nits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: A total of 15t of surface water fill will
result from the longer pipe. Additionally 5 ft of rip rap annoring will be added to both the inlet
and the outlet of the structure. Also 25 ft of concurrent dewatering is proposed.
Page 3 of 8
Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
Site 1 Fill herbaceous yes abutting 0.06
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.06
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.06 ac
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
Site 1 UT Mango Creek Fill (piped length) Perennial 6.0 15 0.0002
Rip rap armoring
10
0.0001
along stream bank
Temporary 25 0.0003
dewatering concurrent concunfent
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
25
0.0003
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dredaina. flooding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.0003
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.06
Open Water Impact (acres): NONE
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.0603
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 25
Page 4 of 8
6. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
7. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
infonnation related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. All wetlands and surface
waters not affected by construction will be protected from unnecessary encroachment during
construction. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices for the protection of wetlands
and surface waters will be enforced during construction. Only the smallest amount of fill
necessary to complete the project will be placed in waters of the United States.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
Page 5 of 8
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.litml.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Unavoidable impacts to 15 Ift of stream associated with this project will be mitigated (at
a 2.1 ratio) by providing 30 Ift of stream restoration equivalent in the Neuse River Basin
(Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020201). Additionally, unavoidable impacts to 0.06 acre
of non-riverine wetlands will be mitigated (at a 1:1 ratio) by providing 0.06 acre of
restoration equivalent non-riverine wetlands within the same river basin and cataloging
unit All compensatory mitigation requirements will be assimilated on a quarterly basis
and provided to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their acceptance with a
copy provided to the USACE for verification and accounting purposes.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
(919) 715-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following infonnation:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 30 ft
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.06 ac
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
Page 6 of 8
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at (919) 733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Site 1
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 1,711 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
2 1,115 1.5 N/A
Total 2,826 N/A
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
Page 7 of 8
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. No additional impervious surface is proposed
with this maintenance project. Erosion and sediment control devices at these sites are comprised
of temporary dewatering and rip rap armoring the structure ends.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
This maintenance project will not generate wastewater.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This maintenance project will not result in additional development.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
I UApplicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
os Joel tog
Page 8 of 8
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.ID Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Replacement of structure conveying an unnamed tributary to
Mango Creek on SR 2516 (Hodge Road) in Wake County. WBS Element No. 5C.092014. Existing pipe structure is undersized with old rock
headwalls that have collapsed. Existing structure: 36 inch metal pipe that is 45 feet long. Proposed structure: 87" x 63" metal pipe that is 60
feet long.
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake City: Raleigh
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.7735° N, Long. 78.5238° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT Mango Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Z 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 fonn.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are uo "novigable 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): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters'` (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 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: 25 feet permanent and 25 feet temporary concurrent linear feet: 6 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.06 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on::1;987 Delineation' Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this torn, 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.
2
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.I 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 if I.D.I.; otherwise, see Section 111.13 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 Rapanoshave 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 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 II LC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TN W5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
s 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.
3
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that anplv):
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):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other(list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM 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 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: Pf& List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
5
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
TN Ws, 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 IILD:
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 IILD:
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):
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.
ED Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Water flow observed during drought, ordinary high water mark observed, formation of small blow hole
at outlet of structure, existing pipe size (36 inch diameter) and proposed pipe size (87" x 63" diameter) are indicative of
perennial flow.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 25 feet permanent and 25 feet temporary concurrent linear feet 6 feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: 0.06 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: herbaceous/shrub wetland.
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Z Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Z 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: Observations during site visit indicate stream is perennial: water flow observed during
drought, ordinary high water mark observed, formation of small blow hole at outlet of structure, existing pipe size
(36 inch diameter) and proposed pipe size (87" x 63" diameter) are indicative of perennial flow Wetland is located
directly adjacent to stream on both sides of the roadway.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 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: 0.06 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 [iLC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IiI.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
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.
"See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
"' Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
7
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
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" (M BR).
? 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 M BR
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:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? I00-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-2 in application dated 05/05/08.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Z Other information (please specify):Site visit on May 05, 2008. .
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Appendix One
(USAGE Wetland Delineation forms/
DWQ rating sheets)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site. SR 2514, L!La' HT Date: , -15-15 AS
Applicant / Owner: DDT P/ 5 County:; A`
investigator: e? on vL. State: No
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed. (Atypical situation)? Yes-- No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
-VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 7L-AA wo - EACIAlf- 9.
2. 10.
Jh?'
3. kllul
11.
4,,.. f8? true trn? .:. ?, _? 12._
5.' Hs SP
? 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species,_that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAG-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 500 , of the Plant Species are/are not. _.... ,. .
CCassified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
we #kw? as s
HYDROLOGY
- Recorded* Data (Describe'ln•Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs t Primary Indicators:
Other ` Inundated
Saturated do Upper 1.2"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: D "(in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
2- (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
_
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: b (in.) 1L FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
y ?? P
JVILJ
Map Unit Name
Series and Phase):-- °?l uU Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 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.
o-'t /O/A 4r
/0 Xe 4p/ t
g-i2 _ rays 5 L
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor ?Jrganic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime `/Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ educing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
__ZGleyed or Low-Chroma Colors , Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point /
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
?`J?S a 1s '- Z.,e7??
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetiahds Determination Manual)
Project / Site:_ 52 .251 ?'°?° ???? r?'1R???
Applicant / Owner: DT /V?s -?
Investigator: pn Date: 15-1.5-110
Coun Iq
state:
C
-
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No_w7?
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ? Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse If needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. yio s An c e6-- 7'' i9C 9.
2. tkrK 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-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not _
"'Classified°asTAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
. W10 we-
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:
Oxidized Roots Channels In Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
nn f
vv1Lv
Map Unit Name ,
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 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:
/Z sz,
wt I LAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -_v---No / Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ? j Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual..
..T,: R4?.t'«.: ak:; :: ?tiS, ..•;sx<ace:;rcr,.xq: r.•::S£:r •FiE:%?'i::• v.'•:::rSx':s»s:r.?w.>:cc ::,, ;^....:.;
S < L. sky w K > ^ ?<3 0
.?.<•:2•'t?"•:s:<:2ao<...:.. •.w;.: •., .; S.Y. ...?>Y,;•>•>ca..c•»., wK. t s t`?s??4?kf;?.?..?:ki:??? sas>S.'?S//?%!i'c;iiL:.a<z$::..:: ?Jj
d#:a:?'?•s3 A`? ?i?YfsYs?': '?.d° <1S??Z2?? `?S?L?>?F,ef?,:.?4>?•°ei?5??.1':?l;:aen...:r. <:...
1 Vd
Project Name 2-516'
a tl
County
Name of evaluator Me-Aff-',
J - "'I
Area
Nearest Road ZS/<i
_ ac;es Wetland Width 12?t' feet
Date 5 og'
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
: on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil series ?U°? 'L??O
_ predominantly organic - humus, muck,
opeat
/predominantly mineral - non-sandy
- predominantly sandy .
Hydraulic factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
total wetland width 1100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, ups.-lope, or radius)
VXforested/natural vegetation $0%
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface -0 %
Dominant vegetation
(2) 144110 411 12 u4-
(3).'?tDA?
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
/'Headwater Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest PlAr" Bog/fen
_ Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest - Other ,
*the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish, marshes or stream channels_____________________
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 = t = :>.
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 =
T Pollutant. removal * x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 = :><> •<•;.°<.:
Wetland
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
?iyslo?e: or radius---- ---------------------------------------------------------