The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19910022 Ver 3_signed PreJD_20191009Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 1 ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 2 All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F Part G Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 3 A.PARCEL INFORMATION B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION 1 If available 2 Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form 3 If available ïëèëë ÒÝóèé Ì¿® Ø»»´ô Ò±®¬¸ Ý¿®±´·²¿ Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ Í»» Ú·¹«®» ïæ Ê·½·²·¬§ Ó¿° ðíëêððèîîêèê Õ·³´»§óØ±®²ô ßÌÌÒæ Þ»¬¸ Î»»¼ ìîï Ú¿§»¬¬»ª·´´» Í¬®»»¬ô Í«·¬» êððô Î¿´»·¹¸ô ÒÝ îéêðï çïçóêééóîðéí Þ»¬¸òÎ»»¼àÕ·³´»§óØ±®²ò½±³ ì Í³·¬¸º·»´¼ Ð¿½µ·²¹ Î»¿´¬§ Ð¿®¬²»®¸·° îèðð Ð±¬ Ñ¿µ Þ´ª¼ô Í«·¬» ìîðð Ø±«¬±²ô Ì»¨¿ ééðëê Jurisdictional Determination Request D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION" I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 1044 k kP-ka„ -7-.20- Property Owner (please print) Date Property Om E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE Select One: ❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein. This request does include a delineation. 0 I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary ID for the property identified herein. This request does NOT include a delineation. ❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or absence of WoUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation. I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat). ❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted by others) on a property/project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not include a survey plat). For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USAGE protocols, skip to Part E 5 Waters of the United States Version: December 2013 Page 4 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 5 F.ALL REQUESTS G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES 6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008 ì ì éêòç ì Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 6 7 1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/reg_supp.aspx Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=76f3c58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c&groupId=38364 and, http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/2013/NCSAM_Draft_User_Manual_130318.pdf 8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type. íìòéëðîïî óéèòèðêîììì ì ì ì ì Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 7 9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type. ì ì ì ì ì Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 8 I.REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT (1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 9 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 10 (2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE “This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.” Regulatory Official: _____________________________________ Title:_____________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ USACE Action ID No.: _____________________________________ "This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations, this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.” Regulatory Official: _____________________________________ Title:_____________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ USACE Action ID No.: _____________________________________ Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: December 2013 Page 11 (3) GPS SURVEYS Wetland W1 1 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Bladen County City: Tar Heel Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.750212 ° N, Long. 78.806244° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 Name of nearest waterbody: Goodman Swamp Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203 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 tr ansport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: . B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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 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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): . 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). Wetland W1 2 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: Waters/wetlands are isolated. Wetland W1 is a 10.3 acre “pocosin” wetland according to NCWAM. W1 is a depressional Carolina bay surrounded on all sides by uplands. W1 is topographically flat and located in between the Cape Fear River and Goodman Swamp. No hydrologic connection to either feature was observed. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: . Summarize rationale supporting determination: . 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: . B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law . If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. Wetland W1 3 Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . Identify flow route to TNW5: . Tributary stream order, if known: . (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: . Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: . Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: . Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: . Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: . Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: . Other information on duration and volume: . Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: . 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 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. 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or wh ere 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 t he break. 7Ibid. Wetland W1 4 other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): . Wetland fringe. Characteristics: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: . Wetland quality. Explain: . Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: . Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: . Ecological connection. Explain: . Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: . (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): . Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. Wetland W1 5 For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: . C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions per formed 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 f low 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. betw een 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 wate rs 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 c arbon 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: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: . Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: . Wetland W1 6 Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-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 flo w “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: . Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):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 co mmerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . 8See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Co rps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Wetland W1 7 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) co mmerce. 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: Wetland W1 is an isolated wetland that has no hydrologic connectivity to downstream waters. The wetland is surrounded to the north, east, and south by topography and to the west by a manmade utility easement. W1 is surrounded entirely by uplands. 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: Duart Quad (1:24,000) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Bladen County (1990) 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): NC Statewide Orthoimagery Project (2015) 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: . Wetland W2 & W4 1 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Bladen County City: Tar Heel Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.750212 ° N, Long. 78.806244° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 Name of nearest waterbody: Goodman Swamp Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203 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 tr ansport 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 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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 4.1 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual Elevation of established OHWM (if known): N/A 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: 1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. Wetland W2 & W4 2 SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.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 traditio nal navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law . If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . Identify flow route to TNW5: . 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid 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. Wetland W2 & W4 3 Tributary stream order, if known: . (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: . Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: . Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: . Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: . Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: . Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: . Other information on duration and volume: . Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: . 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: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or wh ere 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 t he break. 7Ibid. Wetland W2 & W4 4 (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): . Wetland fringe. Characteristics: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: . Wetland quality. Explain: . Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: . Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: . Ecological connection. Explain: . Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: . (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): . Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. Wetland W2 & W4 5 For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: . C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions per formed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological in tegrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of i ts 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. bet ween 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 c arbon that support downstream foodwebs?  Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, o r 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: 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: A review of available orthoimagery and LiDAR indicate significant flow and depth within Goodman Swamp, where W2 and W4 drain. Further, Goodman Swamp is mapped as perennial on both the USGS Topographic Map (Duart and Tar Heel Quads) and the NRCS Soil Survey for Bladen County. 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: . Wetland W2 & W4 6 Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-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 W2 and W4 are relatively small portions of larger headwater systems that drain directly to Goodman Swamp. Goodman Swamp is a perennial tributary to the Lumber River according to the USGS Topographic Map (Duart and Tar Heel Quads) and the NRCS Soil Survey for Bladen County. 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: 4.1 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):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. 8See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Co rps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Wetland W2 & W4 7 Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: . Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR). Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Other: (explain, if not covered above): . Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional 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: Duart and Tar Heel Quads (1:24,000) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Bladen County (1990) 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): NC Statewide Orthoimagery Project (2015) 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: . Wetland W3 1 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Bladen County City: Tar Heel Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.750212 ° N, Long. 78.806244° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 Name of nearest waterbody: Goodman Swamp Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203 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 tr ansport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: . B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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 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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): . 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). Wetland W3 2 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: Waters/wetlands are isolated. Wetland W3 is a 0.015 acre. W1 is a depressional “headwater forest” wetland according to NCWAM. W3 is located in a slight topographical depression, noticeable on LiDAR imagery. W3 is surrounded to the south, west, east by man-made berms and development, and to the north by an upland pine forest. No hydrologic connection to downstream waters was observed. 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 ex istence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law . If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. Wetland W3 3 Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . Identify flow route to TNW5: . Tributary stream order, if known: . (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: . Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: . Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: . Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: . Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: . Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: . Other information on duration and volume: . Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: . 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. 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. 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or wh ere 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 t he break. 7Ibid. Wetland W3 4 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: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): . Wetland fringe. Characteristics: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: . Wetland quality. Explain: . Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: . Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: . Ecological connection. Explain: . Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: . (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): . Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. Wetland W3 5 For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: . C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions per formed 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 f low 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. betw een 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 wate rs 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 c arbon 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: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: . Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: . Wetland W3 6 Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-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 flo w “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: . Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):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 co mmerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . 8See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Co rps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Wetland W3 7 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) co mmerce. 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: Wetland W1 is an isolated wetland that has no hydrologic connectivity to downstream waters. The wetland is surrounded to the south, east, and west by berms and to the north by an upland pine forest. W1 is a fully enclosed depressional wetland with no outlet. 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: Tar Heel Quad (1:24,000) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Bladen County (1990) 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): NC Statewide Orthoimagery Project (2015) 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: . tuèé k ÍßÓÐÍÑÒ ÝËÓÞÛÎÔßÒÜ ÞÔßÜÛÒ ÝÑÔËÓÞËÍ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Ú Ô»¹»²¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ Í¬«¼§ ß®»¿ Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ ð îôððð ìôððð Ú»»¬ Ú·¹«®» ïæ Ê·½·²·¬§ Ó¿° Ì¿® Ø»»´ Í·¬» Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ô ÒÝ ð ê ïî Ó·´» Õ»²¬«½µ§Ê·®¹·²·¿ Ò±®¬¸ Ý¿®±´·²¿ Ì»²²»»» Ù»±®¹·¿ Í±«¬¸ Ý¿®±´·²¿Atlantic Ocean ð ìð èð Ó·´» ÂÁ Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ Ú·¹«®» îæ ËÍÙÍ Ì±°±¹®¿°¸·½ Ó¿° øÜ«¿®¬ ¿²¼ Ì¿® Ø»»´ Ï«¿¼÷ Ì¿® Ø»»´ Í·¬» Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ô ÒÝ Ú ð êðð ïôîðð Ú»»¬ Ô»¹»²¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ Í¬«¼§ ß®»¿ Éì Éï Éí Éî tuèé Ú·¹«®» íæ Ö«®·¼·½¬·±²¿´ Ú»¿¬«®» Ó¿° Ì¿® Ø»»´ Í·¬» Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ô ÒÝ Ú ð ëðð ïôððð Ú»»¬ Ô»¹»²¼ É»¬´¿²¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ Í¬«¼§ ß®»¿ Ú·¹«®» ìæ ÒÎÝÍ Í±·´ Í«®ª»§ Ó¿° Ì¿® Ø»»´ Í·¬» Þ´¿¼»² Ý±«²¬§ô ÒÝ Ú ð éëð ïôëðð Ú»»¬ Ô»¹»²¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ Í¬«¼§ ß®»¿ Map Unit Map Unit Name Status GbA Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Inclusions LnA Lynchburg fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain Non-hydric Ly Lynn Haven and Torhunta soils Hydric NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Inclusions Oc Ocilla loamy sand Inclusions Pe Pantego loam Hydric RaA Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain Hydric WaB Wagram fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Inclusions Wo Woodington loamy sand Hydric Hydric Soil Table Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W1-UP B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Terrace None <1% LRR P 34.752423 -78.805802 NAD 83 WaB - Wagram fine sand None ì ì ì Data point W1-UP was taken approximately 20' from and 1' higher in elevation than W1-WET. The uplands surrounding wetland W1 were distinguishable by a change in the vegetation community and a topographic break. ì ì ì ì ì >20" ì >20"ì No primary or secondary hydrology indicators were observed at W1-UP. W1-UP 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿25%Y FAC 6 Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿15%Y FAC 6 100% 30' 40% 20%8% Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿15%Y FAC Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿15%Y FAC Ô·¯«·¼¿³¾¿®¬§®¿½·º´«¿10%Y FAC Ð®«²«»®±¬·²¿5%N FACU X 45% 22.5%9% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 5%ì2.5%1% W1-UP 0-5"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 5-10"10YR 3/2 100%Sandy loam 10-16"10YR 4/3 100%Sandy loam 16-20"10YR 6/1 100%Sandy clay ì No hydric soil indicators were observed within the upper 20" of soil. No groundwater or saturation was present within the upper 20" of soil. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W1-WET B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Carolina bay Concave <1% LRR P 34.725399 -78.806040 NAD 83 Ra - Rains fine sandy loam PFO4A ì ì ì Wetland W1 is a Carolina bay wetland. W1 appears disconnected from downstream receiving waters and hydrology is likely sourced from high groundwater and precipitation events. W1 is bounded topographically and contains soils and vegetation typical of Carolina bays. ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì 7" ì ì4" W1 appears to pond water up to 4" in the most depressional areas. Hydrology is likely sourced from groundwater and precipitation events. W1-WET 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿30%Y FAC 9 ß½»®®«¾®«³15%Y FAC Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿15%Y FAC 9 100% 30' 60% 30%12% Ó¿¹²±´·¿ª·®¹·²·¿²¿15%Y FACW Ý§®·´´¿®¿½»³·º´±®¿15%Y FACW Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿10%Y FAC ×´»¨±°¿½¿5%Y FAC X 45% 22.5%9% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 10% Í³·´¿¨´¿«®·º±´·¿5%Y FAC ì5%2% W1 is hummocky throughout the wetland. W1-WET 0-4"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 4-10"10YR 5/1 100%Loam 10-14"10YR 5/1 100%Clay loam 14-20"10YR 6/1 100%Clay ì ì ì The water table was observed at 7" and the soils were saturated at 4" deep. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W2-UP B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Berm Convex <1% LRR P 34.748369 -78.808419 NAD 83 Wo - Woodington loamy sand None ì ì ì Data point W2-UP was taken on a man-made berm adjacent to wetland W2. W2-UP is located approximately 20' east of and 3' higher in elevation than W2-WET. ì ì ì ì ì >24" ì >24"ì No primary or secondary hydrology indicators were observed at W2-UP. W2-UP 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿25%Y FAC 4 ß½»®®«¾®«³15%Y FAC 4 100% 30' 40% 20%8% Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿5%Y FAC X 5% 2.5%1% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 5%ì2.5%1% W2-UP 0-5"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 5-24"10YR 5/4 100%Fill material ì No water table or saturation was present within the top 24". The soils at W2-UP are primarily composed of fill material. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W2-WET B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Topographic crenulation Concave <1% LRR P 34.748282 -78.808452 NAD 83 Wo - Woodington loamy sand None ì ì ì Wetland W2 is a small, headwater drainage within the study area. W2 has been altered by a utility easement to the west. W2 is bounded by the easement fillslope and a man-made berm to the east. ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì 10" ì ì6" W2 appears to receive hydrology from groundwater and runoff from the surrounding uplands. W2-WET 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿25%Y FAC 5 5 100% 30' 25% 12.5%5% ß½»®®«¾®«³5%Y FAC Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿5%Y FAC X 10% 5%2% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 10% Í³·´¿¨´¿«®·º±´·¿5%Y FAC ì5%2% W1 is hummocky throughout the wetland. W2-WET 0-4"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 4-10"10YR 5/1 100%Loam 10-20"10YR 5/2 100%Clay loam ì ì ì The water table was observed at 10" and the soils were saturated at 6" deep. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W3-UP B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Terrace None <1% LRR P 34.749329 -78.807845 NAD 83 Ra - Rains fine sandy loam None ì ì ì Data point W3-UP was taken in a pine dominated forest approximately 30' north of and 1'higher in elevation than W3-WET. ì ì ì ì ì >18" ì >18"ì No primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators were observed at W3-UP. W3-UP 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿40%Y FAC 5 ß½»®®«¾®«³5%Y FAC 6 83.3% 30' 45% 22.5%9% Ö«²·°»®«ª·®¹·²·¿²¿5%Y FACU Ô·¯«·¼¿³¾¿®¬§®¿½·º´«¿5%Y FAC Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿5%Y FAC X 15% 7.5%3% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿10%Y FAC 10%ì5%2% W3-UP 0-4"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 4-12"10YR 4/2 100%Loam 12-18"10YR 5/2 100%Clay loam ì No water table or saturated soils were observed at W3-UP. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W3-WET B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Isolated depression Concave <1% LRR P 34.749175 -78.807885 NAD 83 Ra - Rains fine sandy loam None ì ì ì Wetland W3 is a small, isolated depression influenced by surface water runoff from adjacent development. ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì 10" ì ì7" W3 has a variable water table, but typically present within upper 12". Hydrology in W3 is sourced from groundwater and surface water runoff from adjacent parking lots. W3-WET 30' ß½»®®«¾®«³5%Y FAC 5 5 100% 30' 5% 2.5%1% ß½»®®«¾®«³5%Y FAC Ô·¯«·¼¿³¾¿®¬§®¿½·º´«¿5%Y FAC X 10% 5%2% 30' Ý¿®»¨°°ò 5%Y FAC 5% 2.5%1% 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 5%ì2.5%1% Wetland W3 is sparsely vegetated. W3-WET 0-5"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 5-12"10YR 6/1 100%Sandy loam 12-16"10YR 6/1 90%10YR 5/8 10%C M Clay loam ì ì ì The water table was commonly present within the upper 12" and soils were saturated typically 3-4" above the water table. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W4-UP B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Slight hillslope None 1-2% LRR P 34.754846 -78.806786 NAD 83 Wo - Woodington loamy sand None ì ì ì Data point W4-UP was taken bordering the southern edge of W4. The uplands surrounding wetland W4 are distinguishable by a significant change in the vegetation community and a topographic break. ì ì ì ì ì >18" ì >18"ì No primary or secondary hydrology indicators were observed at W4-UP. W4-UP 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿25%Y FAC 7 Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿15%Y FAC ß½»®®«¾®«³5%N FAC 7 100% 30' 45% 22.5%9% Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿15%Y FAC Ï«»®½«²·¹®¿15%Y FAC Ô·¯«·¼¿³¾¿®¬§®¿½·º´«¿10%Y FAC X 40% 20%8% 30' Ò±²» 30' Í³·´¿¨´¿«®·º±´·¿5%Y FAC 5%ì2.5%1% W4-UP 0-5"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 5-8"10YR 3/2 100%Sandy loam 8-14"10YR 5/2 100%Sandy loam 14-18"10YR 6/2 100%Sandy clay ì No hydric soil indicators were observed within the upper 20" of soil. No groundwater or saturation was present within the upper 20" of soil. Smithfield Facility Tar Heel/Bladen County 1/25/2017 Smithfield Packing Realty Group NC W4-WET B. Reed & W. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn)Hollow Headwater drainage Concave <1% LRR P 34.755538 -78.806914 NAD 83 Wo - Woodington loamy sand PFO4B ì ì ì Wetland W4 is a large headwater drainage to Goodman Swamp. Hydrology in W4 appears to be sourced from groundwater and precipitation events. W4 is bounded by road fillslopes within the project study area. ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì ì 7" ì ì4" W4 is a headwater system and likely receives hydrology from a high water table and groundwater recharge. No surface water was observed within W4. W4-WET 30' Ð·²«¬¿»¼¿20%Y FAC 9 ß½»®®«¾®«³20%Y FAC Ð»®»¿¾±®¾±²·¿5%Y FACW 9 100% 30' 45% 22.5%9% ×´»¨½±®·¿½»¿30%Y FACW Ý§®·´´¿®¿½»³·º´±®¿30%Y FACW Ô§±²·¿´«½·¼¿10%Y FACW ×´»¨±°¿½¿5%N FAC X 75% 37.5%9% 30' ß®«²¼·²¿®·¿¹·¹¿²¬»¿5%Y FACW 5% 2.5%1% 30' Í³·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿15%Y FAC 20% Í³·´¿¨´¿«®·º±´·¿5%Y FAC ì10%4% W4 is densely vegetated with understory shrubs. W4-WET 0-4"10YR 3/1 100%Loam 4-10"10YR 5/1 100%Loam 10-18"10YR 6/1 100%Clay loam ì ì ì The water table was observed at 7" and the soils were saturated at 4" deep.