20081163 Ver 1_401 Application_20080708

08-1 1 63
WN;t
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc. ?.',..:*•'
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. Andrew Williams
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: PCN - Mayo Forest
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Williams:
July 22, 2008
Mayo Forest is a proposed residential development in Rockingham County, near Stoneville, NC. The
development of the +/-60 acre site includes two stream crossings for subdivision roads, two stream
crossings for lot driveways, and a stream impact associated with the installation of a septic line to access
a suitable septic field. Total proposed stream impacts to important/mitigatable channels are 144 If. Total
proposed impacts to intermittent/unimportant channels are 131 If. Endwalls have been utilized to
minimize impacts to channels. Mitigation is to come in the form of avoidance/minimization (endwalls on
crossings) and preservation (approx 4100 If of channel, 0.5 acres of open water, and 0.385 acres of
wetland).
The old farm pond dam will be rehabilitated. There will be no impacts to regulated waters during
proposed work on the dam. The non-regulated feature that drains the pond as a result of the dam
failure will be filled, and the intended pond outlet will be re-established. Because no impacts to regulated
features will occur, we are not requesting a permit for the dam rehabilitation.
Attached for your review are:
• Corps Cover Letter
• PCN Form
• Agent Authorization
• USGS Topo Quad
• Site Plan / Impact Map
• Wetland / Upland Dataforms
• Stream Forms
• JD Forms
• Soil Survey
• Aerial Photo
Please contact me with any questions you may have.
Best regards,
David Nishida
EIE@Rpwf?p
JUL 9 0 2008
WETLANDS AND TORMY ATERR BRAMA
Sparta Office
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Mayo Forest
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Charles Rakestraw
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: WNR
*Agent authorization attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): n/a
5. Site Address: NC Hwy 770 Stoneville, NC
6. Subdivision Name:
7. City: Stoneville, NC
8. County: Rockingham
9. Lat: 36.4732 ° N Long:: 79.9353 ° W
10. Quadrangle Name: Mayodan
11. Waterway: UT to Mayo River
12. Watershed: Roanoke River
13. Requested Action:
® Nationwide Permit # 29
? General Permit #
® Jurisdictional Determination Request
? Pre-Application Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------•
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description / Nature of Activity / Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
•7UL-21-200)? 11:23A =R0h1:RPrZSTIiAI.1 3365732896 70:13224653050
WHI
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
Department of the Army
Wilmington District: Corps of :ngineers
Attn: Ken lolly, Chtef Regulatory M.4s;on
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina, 28402-1890
-ond-
NC olvislon of Water Quatly, Wetlands Unit
Attn: Cynd: Karoly
2321 Croblree PAvc.
Raleigh. North Carollno, 276042260
P.2 2
w+r i
t?;'r•*r;
I, the current landowner of the property identified below, hereby authorize Wetland and Natural Resoorce
Ccnsultants, Inc. to act on my behalf as my agent during Me determination of regulated Imits of waters
and wetlands and procosalno of parmlts to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are regulated by
the Cieam Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
Feckwal and Stale agents are authorized to be on said property when accompanied ir•y Wetland and
Nalural Resource Consultants. Inc. staff.
Welland and Natural Reset rce Cansu6anl3, Inc. is authorized to provide supplemental information needed
tar permit processing at the request.of the Corps or DWO.
Prcpeoy Owner / Applicant: i ti ?i ?5 ? ?f-°S L°n?" C+7? SOp?y r X-n c
Street Address/ PC Box: m v -? L-j s+' u?ep1?"x 1
Ctty, State. Zip Code: ?IVY,I? nJG ?? f7 r o
Phone / fox Number. 33 b - Sa?t^ - Lq OZ,
Project Name, InCA O f V-CCS 1 T"
Property Vreet Addres.: Hw'770 S"forreyi /V/-
% (street address, city, State, zip) ,0 y
Owners / AprAcani $gnalure:
Dal®: .7'a? 1' Dg 1?
Owners/ Applicant Name: Cbaclpr )4. o k?s-hew plies 4-&W ' %CS+ry
(printed) C,0 r?poa r _rh C ,
Sparta office
PO Box 1492
Spam, NC 29675
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".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:29
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
1. Owner/Applicant Information
JUL 3 0 2008
Name: See attached agent authorization form
Mailing Address: DENR-WATER QUAUTY
Telephone Number: Fax Number: WETLANDS AND sTORMWATER BRANCH
E-mail Address:
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: David Nishida
Company Affiliation: Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
Mailing Address: 3674 Pine Swamp Road
P.O. Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
Telephone Number: 919-606-4270 Fax Number:
E-mail Address: davidgwetland-consultants.com
III. Project Information e
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
Page 1 of 9
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
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 maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Mayo Forest
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 792900429435
4. Location
County: Rockingham Nearest Town: Stoneville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):From US Hwy 220 in
Stoneville, NC. Take exit for Rte 770. Turn left on Rte 770. Travel for 3/4 mile. Site is on
right.
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): 36.4732°N 79.9353°W
6. Property size (acres): +/- 60 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT to Mayo River
8. River Basin: Roanoke
(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/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site is forested. An old farm pond that needs repair is located
on property. The general land use in the vicinity is forestry and agriculture.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
is a single family residential development. Stream impacts include two road crossings for
subdivision roads and stream impacts for Lot 17 and 18 driveways. Typical grading
equipment will be used in the construction of the roads and installation of culverts.
Page 2 of 9
Lot 30 will require the septic line to cross a channel to access a suitable septic field. The
channel crossing will be achieved with open trench and backfill.
Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the work is to access highground
to facilitate development of the property. Because of grading constraints the two
subdivision road crossings are needed to access the entirety of the property. Stream impacts
are necessary to gain access to lots 17 and 18 with a driveway.
Impact S5 associated with the installation of a septic line is neccesary for proper sewage
treatment of Lot 30.
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 permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
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 permits 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:
Stream impacts include two stream crossings for subdivision roads. S 1 is for 143 if of important
channel. S2 is for 71 if of intermittent unimportant channel S3 and S4 impacts are associated
Page 3 of 9
with the driveways for lots 17 and 18 for a total of 60 If to unimportant channels. Endwalls are
being utilized to minimize the impacts associated with the crossings.
Impact S5 (1 if on perennial channel) is a septic line crossing of a channel to access the suitable
septic field.
The old farm pond dam will be rehabilitated. There will be no impacts to regulated waters
during proposed work on the dam. The non-regulated feature that drains the pond as a result of
the dam failure will be filled, and the intended pond outlet will be re-established. Because no
impacts to regulated features will occur, we are not requesting a permit for the dam
rehabilitation.
1. 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
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,

herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(odplai Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.385
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, multi ly 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)
Sl UT to Mayo River Permanent/Culvert Perennial 5 103 .01
SIA UT to Mayo River Permanent/Riprap Perennial 5 40 .005
S2 UT to Mayo River Permanent/Culvert Intermittent 2 41 .002
S2A UT to Mayo River Permanent/Riprap Intermittent 2 30 .001
S3 UT to Mayo River Permanent/Culvert Intermittent 2 20 .001
Page 4 of 9
S3A UT to Mayo River Permanent/Riprap Intermittent 2 10 .0005
S4 UT to Mayo River Permanent/Culvert Intermittent 2 20 .001
S4A UT to Mayo River Permanent/Riprap Intermittent 2 10 .0005
S5 UT to Mayo River Open Trench Perennial 7 1 .0002
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 275 .0212
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, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.0212
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.0212
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 275
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.
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)
Page 5 of 9
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information 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.
Impacts S1, S2, S3, and S4 are necessary to gain access to high ground. Endwalls are being
utilized to minimize stream impacts.
Impact S5 is necessary because of a lack of suitable septic fields on the north side of the channel
in Lot 30.
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
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.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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
Page 6 of 9
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation is in the form of avoidance and minimization, and preservation. Endwalls are
being utilized to minimize impacts to streams. The remainder of the streams (approx 4100
If), and open water approx 0.5ac) on site will have a buffer placed on them as can be seen on
the attached map. The wetlands (0.385 ac) on site will be preserved.
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
[phone] 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 information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):_
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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
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 [phone] 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.
Page 7 of 9
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify N/A)? 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.
Impact Required
Zone* "__-__,r_-, Multiplier I r, .. _
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone l 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.
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 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
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
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The residential development has larger than 1
acre lots resulting in a low % impervious area.
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.
Onsite septic
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
Page 8 of 9
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.ear. state. nc. us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: No
utilities, spur roads etc. will be created in a manner that will facilitate further development as a
result of this 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).
N/A

Applicant/Agent's Signature bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
79.9500000 ° W
I ?-5 v<' ? t
+ oaf
f? s
%
oo
\
Ce)
?'-
}
t .. {
333 ° W 79.9166666 ° W
ri
r
/ ( 4
y 1 v 1 1 ? l? t t
t . ?.. L, 1 ?y '.1
M
Cl)
1
00
i
1 4 CO
C
ale - -
r
cfl C `'
_ r L
A
?y. -6raGe ("
cfl r y _ J y ?- • _ o
I
t
M
1
`r \4
r
?v
w
a i Y
Y 7.
"J z
,
O 0 1
+t.,
,
1 D
CO
M
8°W
79.9500000'W 79.9331333 ° W 79.9166666 ° W
Name: MAY DAN
O Location: 036.4728442°N 079.9350249°W
Date: 7/17/2008 Caption: Mayo Forest
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc
o z
o -? o
N U
m cn
rv N
o? II
to
a >v std +-??. Vi
I
? .a
b
I ? z
VO CL
`L O bg. \ N
Oro ?Og
L ti P° Ei
,... o1b
o
O O o ai
uq) 00
A;> kf)
O O Lr
p O 10 ?1 V OO•
`O
?. o ¢ ^v r py. i 7 00 E 00
P
Col.
FA r
4.1 C? 0. Cd
J
® ® 9
p O
u i
y y ?,
v t'i p
R
dr_
CL 0
n ® mp n
u •°' N ? g a y' J I ?I ?LL ? s
L. d O a L
IAA N r0l
I Y .? V ? D
f' L r Nom[ O~.
qFa Np rtlF
3 6°
of.E
J I O Z'6 r i C
rl
y NW Y
I "9 ? C ?' _y Ci Y
! O :v''? / o ? 5s I Y 00) Ys
>> O q / '.re e b T4 - e - VUYu rrdu
' 0-
d C ?v c L
l I a ^ ?
?O tl
5r -
W a
>
1 i
Eu ?
'? ? i' ?19 L ? OD
?E i a Z y° Y tl d.9
ICO J C 6 tlL `t TO
8r
V'? L y
oL V W Y
°?
rl O ® e L
i
QiLa
U aQYa UO 9ZYN
o N Y V pU (i L C
IL-?_ CL l y Y O YA T 7 o ------------
B 0) E. NLv E Nyj
G ~ "lN'°` 25L
4S P t E rid L.Z N0 °uY
® p/4 dh vCCYs ??
N
V _?_ p O a `e F. tlM Y
Y ?t EE YYC
E PG• ,OA .0c O 4 tl N Vy
a , ?\\ C ^ YY 40 O Y? L SfY
his i \ R I.: ?? NtOIp?.8 YY
•r yW? 0_0
do* do
\ e 1i ??'.1 A`F r\ 'U .NN nYY
0.0
Co pI, Y
` f I
G• 7 EQ O?
•tl C
P L?
`r
O r 0 6 N O
Y
®? $ l a£°ucp °yo?
0 Q I ES Y4 ON
Ns ggL
U 6 00 I 5 C L M Q .S O
I
_ YY O
N -``
w10? Q o Y NM7 tl O L
y?vy ? tl?8 E? V "°
OX--060 oar
- f3,e wd'".P`s"arn I }}}a? a s y e w L
f Y
rl. d ? N g? y y i Y
M Y
yN
ELL
e - UM1 d d$-X tl f N-
YiQi?? `H KOOs
c •F03a py3 Rl
O O57w ML5- y N7 1
yyrW?C M O'aNY y
N00 V E00C UL OL
>mo t `b u y as a
Ong- ;f -
aGR
I I
q? m
i.'.F5
b
9£T'
'ff21 NQW I? I O
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No[-] Community ID:Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes El No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes E] No ® Plot ID:WL1000
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW tree 9.
2. Lindera benzoin FACW shrub 10.
3. Boehmaria cylindrica FACW+ herb 11.
4. Microstegium vimineum FAC+ herb 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). t00%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present
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: 0_5 (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: Wetland hydrology present
SOILS
page 2 WL 1000
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes E] No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
00=4 A IOYR 2/1 / loam
4-12 B 10YR 511 / clay loam

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: Hydric soil present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No E] Community ID:Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes F_1 No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:WL1100
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Boehmaria cylindrica FACW+ herb 9.
2. Microstegium vimineum FAC+ herb 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: Hydrophytic vegetation present
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ? Inundated
0 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:Ojin.) ® Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology present
SOILS
page 2 WL 1100
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (Pa) Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes E] No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
00=3 A JOYR 2/1 / loam
3-12 B 10YR 5/2 / clay loam

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: Hydric soil resent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No E]
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes El No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:WL1200
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ tree 9.
I
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW tree 10.
3. Boehmaria cylindrica FACW+ herb ll.
4. Carex spp. FACW herb 12.
5. Microstegium vimineum FAC+ herb 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present
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
0 Drift Lines
Field Observations: ® Sediment Deposits
® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
® Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit:O m,
) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) ? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology present
SOILS
page 2 WL 1200
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (Pa) Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes E] No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A I OYR 6/3 / sand
22=8 A2 10YR 6/2 5YR 6/6 common/distinct sandy loam
8-12 B 10YR4/1 /

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: Hydric soil present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Z No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No[:]
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes El No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[-] No ® Plot ID:WL1300
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ tree 9. Boehmaria cylindrica FACW+ herb
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW tree 10. Carex spp. FACW herb
3. Acer negundo FACW tree 11. Microstegium vimineum FAC+ herb
4. Carpinus caroliniana FAC tree 12.
5. Acer rubrum FAC tree 13.
6. Asimina triloba FACW+ shrub 14.
7. Alnus serrulata FACW+ shrub 15.
8. Polygonum spp. FACW shrub 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present
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: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
E Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit:"n.) ® Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) ? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology present
SOILS
page 2 WL1300
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (Pa) Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes E] No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 6/3 / sand
2-8 A2 10YR 6/2 5YR 6/6 common/distinct sandy loam
8-12 B 10YR 4/1 /

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: Hydric soil present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Z No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No[:] Community ID:UUpland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes El No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:UP1
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Ulmus amelicana FACW tree 9.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera FAC tree 10.
3. Ca/pinus caroliniana FACW tree 11.
4. Lindera benzoin FACW shrub 12.
5. Polystichum acrostichoides FAC herb 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present
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: ,n
) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators.
SOILS
page 2 UPI
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (Pa) Typic Kanhapludults 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 A lOYR 3/3 / loam
5_12 B lOYR 7/6 / clav loam

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 hydric soil indicators
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes U No ZI
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes[:] No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mayo Forest Date: July 15, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Charles Rakestraw County: Rockingham
Investigator: D. Nishida State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No E] Community ID:UUpland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes El No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes E] No N Plot ID:UP2
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Ulmus americana FACW tree 9. Polystichum acrostichoides FAC herb
2. Liriodendron tulipifera FAC tree 10.
3. Carpinus caroliniana FACW tree 11.
4. Fagus grandifolia FA CU tree 12.
5. Quercus alba FACU tree 13.
6. Comus florida FACU tree 14.
7. Quercus rubra FACU tree 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks: Hydrophhy tic vegetation present
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: No wetland hydrology indicators.
SOILS
page 2 UP2
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Pacolet Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (Pa) Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes El No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 A 10YR 3/3 J loam
5-12 B IOYR 7/6 / clay loam

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 hydric soil indicators
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes LJ No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes E] No
Remarks:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Q o COY C ST Latitude:
Evaluator: ?tiS?1 Site: G ?? CZ Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent I
t County:
e. g. Quad Name:
-/
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 jj? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 - 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 F 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 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 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
' Man-made ditches are not rated; \?s11ee dii?sscussions in manual
o u..,+.,J,.,.., rCnk+-Ml - `1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
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 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.
r• Qi,.l,.nv IQnti+nt?l = 16)
- a,
265. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2,
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 F 2 • 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23 Bivalves 0+ 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
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 bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = .5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 Locus on me presence or uplano plants, item La mcuseb un uic pr cscrs;c ur ayuau,, ur .vcoaro, Nra, rao•
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Ga
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1 no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration ,= max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0
4
4 extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) -
5 Groundwater discharge
' 0-3 0-4 0-4
s wetlands etc. = max points)
no discharge = 0; springs, see
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
7 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
8 no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints '
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
3-
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive de " sition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5
fine, homo enous = O; lar a diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5

0 - 4

0 - 5
R 12 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max I
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max oints
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber; production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no nffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

l8 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5

S?
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4
"
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4

0-S

0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence= 0• common numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 l?
no evidence= 0• common numerous types = max points) V

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: -7 `Z Project: d fazl Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: C a Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent c? County: e.g. Quad Name:
if Z 19 or erenniai if Z 30 oc? . k4wolm
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 4 !9
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1
?_ 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 U 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual

Groundwater flow/discharge
4
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or roWn season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = .5

20 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW 7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence or uplana plants, item za rocuses on ine prebwwu ui ayuaru ui WCUaiM N101 na.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
CH Boa Cx?t a
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

1 _ Presence of flow ! persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0;'strong flow =: max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
4
no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0
5 0-4 0-4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) - J
S Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent lloodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
6 no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / fioodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
7
(deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding = max points) i
;- 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

" 0-6 0-4 0-2
O
scent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input, 0-5 0-4 0-4

extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints t
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 ` 0-5
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
'
0-5
0-4
0-5 O
points)
(deeply incised =0; stable bed & banks= max

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 ,1

V
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

l4 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throw out = Max ints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6

?-
no riffles/ripples ' les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0 6 I ,
little or no habitat = 0; fi-equent, varied habitats = max points)

1B Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0
" no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4
- ? (deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 O
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5 u
no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max ints

=r:
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: 0Mf Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Cq ?A Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 4,
'
County Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if z 30
J
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 f 22) 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 8 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 4a
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; seer discussions in manual
R I.Jurlminnu Mi ihtntnl = L , ] 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season p? 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 .5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C Riolonv (Subtotal = Isar 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23 B'va!ves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) b-T 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW =C79 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item zu focuses on the presence or aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
G? dad ????s 3??
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

h
VAN.
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) U
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
I
2 extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5-
(no no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge

" 0-3 0-4 0-4
O
Tin sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
no dischar = 0• s
Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
6 no flood lain = 0; extensive flood " lain ,= max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
dee I entrenched = 0; frsent flooding = max points
Presence of adjacent wetlands ` 0-6 0-4 0-2
S no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input

` 0-5 0-4 0-4
I
sition= 0• little or no sediment= max points)
extensive de
l I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5
a
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
,
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks= max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0` dense roots .throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 5
0 0-4 0-5
aZ
15 substantial imp act =0; no evidence = max points) -
I Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes .
0-3
0-5
0-6 '
16 no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max ints
17 . Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 f
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max rots

18 .Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4
a
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 O
no evidence= 0• common numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians

4
0

0-4

0-4
r no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish' 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types= max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use

- 6
0

0 - 5

0 - 5 a
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max ints
" These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:] ?? Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Ciq 306 t( -t 5 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent
t County: 11? _ -I'
?VJCJC ?q e.g. Quad Name:
i/>_ 19 or perennial i
z 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = -S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
f
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 Q3
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 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 411
r Rinlnnv (Suhfntal = 16
1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 IZD 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
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 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 °. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item Zy focuses on the presence or aquanc or weaana piams.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
L N scb iknpr4c'4 ?
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0-4 0-5
(no flaw or saturation = 0; stron flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max ints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0- contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 3
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
'-?
no discharge = 0 rin s sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent floodin = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands `
j 0_ 6 0- 4 0- 2 O
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
y
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
`
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment= max oints

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
0-4
0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised ° 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
Presence of major bank failures
13 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

i4 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
`
0-5
0-4
0-5 I
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max ints

16 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0-5
0 - 6
no riffles/riles or pools = 0; Well-developed = max points
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no. habitat = 0• frequent varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over stream bed 0-5 0-5 0-5

no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) J
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4
a
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structures= max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous' types = max points)

2I Presence ofamphibions
0-4
0-4
0-4 2
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

22 Presence offish

0-4

0-4

0-4
a
no evidence .= 0• common numerous types = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints
?I
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
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: Mayo Forest
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CH 100
State:NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Stoneville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.4722479° 11 Long. 79.9364820° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mayo River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan 03010103
0 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or fereign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
EE Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN..'s
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: 15041inear feet: 5width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.005 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
[] Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be riot jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.I and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigablle water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° 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.I 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: 2040 square miles
Drainage area: 39 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1„(or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TN W5: UT Mayo River; Mayo River; Dan River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 2nd.
i Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
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.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: The channel was historically impounded. A portion of the
channel now flows through an area where the dam partially failed.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 5 feet
Average depth:.5 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1: t or less).
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: The condition is slightly unstable with
eroding banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 6 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: Intermittent.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining
u other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
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
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water quality appears to be high.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'[bid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested > 20011.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Two small wetlands on reference reach.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Use of channel by terrestrial wildlife.
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:2@0.002acres
Wetland type. Explain: Forested wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain:good quality.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Evidence shows ephemeral flow occuring.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. 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 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 20 - 50-year 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: Good water quality.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):>200ft forested buffer.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Forested canopy. Plants within wetland are shrubs and herbs.
® 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: 2
Approximately ( 0.005 ) 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 acresI
Yes .0025
Yes .0025
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland are performing the typical
wetland functions in forested settings.
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 111.13:
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 11I.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section I11.D: Wetlands have hydrologic connection to RPW.
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:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (11), Or, acres.
0 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 1I1.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: No flow observed.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 1504 linear feet5width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: 0.5 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: Pond.
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
TN W 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 flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.0025acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
ED 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:.0025acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
® Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
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.
Q which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
RSee Footnote # 3.
v 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.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
n 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):
Z Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
El 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.
El 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.
Q U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Mayodan.
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):
n 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:
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: Mayo Forest
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CH 300
State:NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Stoneville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.4741735° N, Long. 79.93457300 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mayo River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan 03010103
E Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
[] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
?' TN Ws, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
El Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
?` Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 401 linear feet: 2width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.3 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: `1487 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be riot jurisdictional.
Explain:
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).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. 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 navigablle water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° 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: 2040 square miles
Drainage area: y acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 4, tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT Mayo River; Mayo River; Dan River.
Tributary stream order, if known: Ist.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General 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: 2 feet
Average depth:.5 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical'(1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
eroding banks. condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: The condition is slightly unstable with
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 6 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Sea-son aII fl©w
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 1120
Describe flow regime: Intermittent.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
® sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the 01-IWM 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: Water quality appears to be high.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested > 200ft.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: One wetland at pond fringe.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Use by terrestrial wildlife.
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:0.3acres
Wetland type. ExpIain:Forested wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain:good quality.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Evidence shows intermittent flow occuring.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. 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 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters arc 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less 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: Good water quality.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):>200ft forested buffer.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Forested canopy.
® 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: I_
Approximately ( 0.3 ) 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)
Yes 0.3
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland are performing the typical
wetland functions in forested settings.
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 II1.13:
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 111.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
0 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: No flow observed during growing season.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 401 linear feet2width (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):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Wetland stradles stream channel.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.3acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? 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:
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SIVANCC," 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:Mayodan.
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):
? 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:
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: Mayo Forest
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CH 400
State:NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Stoneville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.4741379° N, Long. 79.9355308° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mayo River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan 03010103
ED Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
0 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):
E ] Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
]] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
[} Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There tare "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): 1
0 TNWs, including territorial seas
El Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
9 Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 wetlands directly abutting RP -s that flow directly or indirectly into TN WS
El Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 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: 2971inear feet: 2width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.08 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
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).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section 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.BA 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: 2040 square miles.
Drainage area: 1.8 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT Mayo River; Mayo River; Dan River.
Tributary stream order, if known: I st.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
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.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
eroding banks.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 2 feet
Average depth:.5 feet
Average side slopes: }'crtical (1:1 or less).
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: The condition is slightly unstable with
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 6 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ?easooal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime: Intermittent.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
® sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water quality appears to be high.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
'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): Forested > 200ft.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: One wetland at pond fringe.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Use by terrestrial wildlife.
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:0.08acres
Wetland type. Explain: Forested wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain:good quality.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Evidence shows intermittent flow occuring.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
[I 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 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 atrial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less 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: Good water quality.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):>200ft forested buffer.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. ExplainTorested canopy.
® 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: 1
Approximately ( 0.08 ) 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)
Yes 0.08
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland are performing the typical
wetland functions in forested settings.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSAWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
E TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
ED 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: No flow observed during growing season.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Z' Tributary waters: 297 linear feet2width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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 flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Wetland stradles stream channel.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.3acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
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):"
0 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:
'See Footnote # 3.
y To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 11I.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.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
El 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:Mayodan.
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:
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: Mayo Forest
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CH 500
State:NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Stoneville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.4711217° N, Long. 79.9346787° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mayo River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan 03010103
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 form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
[] Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
?? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are, "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): i
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waterS2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
vv'etlands directly abutting R"rWs that flow directly or indirectly into INWs
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: 18261inear feet: 7width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM?
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section 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 waterbody° 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: 2040 square miles,
Drainage area: 34 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 21 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-14 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT Mayo River; Mayo River; Dan River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 2nd.
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: T.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 7 feet
Average depth:.5 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
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: The condition is unstable with eroding
banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 5 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: Perennial.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
? 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: Water quality appears to be high.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
'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): Forested > 20041.
? 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: Use of channel by aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
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: I
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 now
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 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:
E TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Z Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Observed flow during growing season.
r 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):
Z Tributary waters: 1826 linear feet7width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identity type(s) of waters:
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 flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
?'' Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 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: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
(; J 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-STATE1 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.
Q which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
0 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.
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):
0 Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
[} Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Q 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:Mayodan.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
Q 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:
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: Mayo Forest
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CH 600
State:NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Stoneville
Center coordinates of site (tat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.4715178° N, Long. 79.9392575° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mayo River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan 03010103
t9 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
?' Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
{ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting uPWs that flew directly or indirectly into rArlxs
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: 7541inear feet: 3width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section 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 waterbody° 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: 2040 square-miles
Drainage area: 5 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT Mayo River; Mayo River; Dan River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 2nd.
' 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: T.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth:.5 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
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: Relatively stable.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 5 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime: seasonal-perennial.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water quality appears to be high.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: No known pollutants.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested > 20011.
? 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: Use of channel by aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
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: 2.
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 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:
0' TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
0 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Observed flow during growing season.
Q 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):
0 Tributary waters: 754 linear feet4width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section II1.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'o
?' 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.
' 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 ofjurisdiction 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):
Z 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:Mayodan.
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:
Q Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
m
C
0
m
v
L
0
O
Z
T?
? N
7 m
O O
U ti
Eo
m T
L m
rn?
c --
0
Q.
m
0
U)
co M
Ow0
0
N
n N
or
r- m
a
?o
n Fo
T
a)
Z
o
N O
a) ?
j
c?
a)
00-
U) o
.0 o
°o NU
N C
O
6
Z
of
im
IN
0
0
0
0
M
? U
N
W
1"10 N O
m
f0 d
? N
m 0
ZQ ZU
C?,
m
c
O
m
U
L
0
Z
7 N
O p
U LL
E >
m . m m
?
U
O
a
m
0
V)
N N
O O m
O
_
U O
y p d (NO
O pMj
Q7 0) ?K
L
C L...
O
O
>

'D

? N N

N C 0
E

U O N

.? 6
U m

C O
7
O C
!'- M C
0) E
Q L
7 Z' N m
U)
7
C O
?
- U O
Z a> m U wm o
0 ° m >' E cc c U)
U
r
c?
LO
Z >.
a)
° ?
0 ^
w

Q m' m
N
a N m
O Z Z o
N cLi E m
° N
'
ai c
a o U vi
o Z 0 c m r 3 m.
c
tom a) U) D
o?' m a 0
O
3
U
i 0
3 c
IN U Q
E `0)
° a? .?
ca ° a m
LL u
i
a
y
-ffi
` o? o 3 m? o E?•m m

Z a
m y
N N L p_N E o
2 N = c
o La m a E a
'n m T
N

a Vl M O L w L a) co O H
m
E
a
m

Q mac
E' O a
m?
n
?>
w L
ai
co
c
C CL Z
Z
m
p
E O '
'
,
7
n
c Q
T
u mZ6
- To 2
D
m
0
N m d 7
O U N c
]
U 0) U
p C Q m
N m L c aL
n
m N •

N u) _
°
2 Q
m .
C
0 o
m
C.C C E O C
UU O N
aN n h ?•? N a
'rn3'ma
N ?
o? o
0 N' (
a)
- > m m Em E
m
O>oE 0
0
U) L O
F-L O m
()(n m
o L O
H L) t= o
N
N

o_ 0. c
U ca
r
r

c a
O m
N c
m =
N 3
t v

m a
m
O o
CL

o m
m

T °
co

0
¢
m
c
y
E CD
m 01
5
o rn
o o
o

N r I o
b .Y n m H
. t2
N o t
N
>
O 01
c C7 L 7
O =
0
o L
OO
cn m
C
o
c U
o O
O
J W 7
Q LL 6 N
Z

!

4 J

V

Oi t A Z

«

`
?

L

}}
O

a
'A

9
d
fn 7
-° m
l
F O
3
W
J

Q o d p.
¢ o
N >m
} cn
m
N Y
N
N
?
N d
?

CL N
.0
N
c 'c

a

m d

rm
..
CL d
o
C] o
=
a d
ul
3
o N

O O
0

T o

z
°o.
co
a

(n 2
w

>

y n
o

n
m

m
o

o
Q

g p

LL

I _
f7 N N - L

o
c
O
O
O
N
¢
fn
y N O
c m O m m c
m >
m `
cu C
- N 2
o U C c > 16 C
m in m co U U C7 (D n in in cn (on cn in
m
c a
?
m 3 q o.
Q N
00 M
5
O .O
O
N N
0)
01
T
N
o Cl)
N p
T (n
0)
Z j
7 «.
U) m
N
O a
U O
.O O
yU
o
m
z
d
U
H Z
v ?
? c
0
? m
m
N
7
m O
2 U
;_? I'
-3i
Soil Map-Rockingham County, North Carolina
Mayo Forest
Map Unit Legend
Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI ` Percent of AO1
CcB loam, 2 to 8 Percent
C cil sd
1.7
2.7%
- -- slopes
y
CdB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 4.3 7.0%,
percent slopes, eroded
PaD Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15 8.0 12,9% {
percent slopes
PaE 1 Pacolet sand loam, 15 to 25 38.1 1 61.5%1
percent slopes
PcD2 Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 9.2 14.8%
percent slopes, eroded

W --
Water -
0.7 - - -- -J,
1.1%
Totals for Area of Interest AOI - 62.0 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/17/2008
'i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
http://arcims2.webgis.net/nc/rockingham/printable.asp?process=undefined&x2=undefined&y2=undefined&... 10/12/2007
Rockingham Co. -- Printable Map Page 1 of I