20180358 Ver 1_2017-0531_AJDRequest_112717_20180313

Vicinity Map FIGURE NO.1
I
5,000 0 5,0002,500 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
Flowes Store Road
11/13/20171 inch = 5,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure1_Vicinity.mxd
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2017.
2-Foot
Current USGS Site Location FIGURE NO.2
I
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
Flowes Store Road
11/13/20171 inch = 2,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure2_CurrentUSGS.mxd
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE CONCORD SE, NC (2017).
2-Foot
Historic USGS Site Location FIGURE NO.3
I
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
Flowes Store Road
11/13/20171 inch = 2,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure3_HistoricUSGS.mxd
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE CONCORD SE, NC (1961).
2-Foot
MEETING STFLOWES STORE RDBOSTWOOD LN
CL
A
R
A

C
I
R
FIRETH
O
R
N
E
L
N
VANDERHORST DRWATSON DR
Z
IO
N

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
DAN
B
R
O
O
K
E

D
R
MARILYN C
T
BOSTWOOD LN
Aerial Imagery FIGURE NO.4
I
400 0 400200 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
TaxParcels
Streets
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
11/13/20171 inch = 400 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure4_Aerial.mxd
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2017.
BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY CABARRUS COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2016.
2-Foot
EnB
PoF
PoF
PoF
SfB
EnD
EnD
PaF
EnB
EnD
CuD2
EnB
PaF
EnD
EnD
ChA
MeD
EnD
ChA
ChA
EnD
PoF
CuB2
MeD
EnD
EnB
ChA
PoF
PoD
MeB
LdB2
CuB2
EnD
PoFEnB
ChA
CuD2
AaB
PoD
CuD2
IdB
ChA
EnB
EnB
LdB2
EnD
EnB
ChA
ChA
ChA
CuD2
PoB
ChA
CuB2
PoF
AaB
ChA
EnD
IdB
EnB
EnD
MeB
EnB
EnD
EnD
PoF
PoF
EnB
MeB
LdD2
MeD
MeB
AaB
EnB
MeBCuB2
MeD
EnD
AaB
CuB2
PoF
EnD
PoD
EnB
PoF
MeBCuB2
AaB
IdB
EnB
W
CuB2
PoD
CoD
W
EnB
CcD2
CuD2
EnB
CoD
MeD
ChA
CuD2
MeD
CuD2
SfB
EnD
MeD
PoD
CuB2
CuB2
CuB2
CuB2
ChA
F
L
O
W
E
S

S
T
O
R
E

R
D
SI
M
P
L
I
C
I
T
Y

R
D
MEXICO RDFALCON DRKIWI CTMEETING STBOSTWOOD LNP
I
N
E
Y

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
ZION
C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D ASHLEY DRCL
A
R
A

C
I
RFIRETHORNE LNDAN
BROO
K
E
DRFOOTHI
L
LS

LN
WH
I
P
P
O
O
R
W
I
L
L

L
N ASHEBROOK DR
P
O
I
N
T
E

A
N
D
R
EW
S

D
R
MARILYN C
T
USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Cabarrus County FIGURE NO.5
I
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
Streets
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
11/16/20171 inch = 1,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure5_CurrentSoil.mxd
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF CABARRUS COUNTY, DATED 2016.
2-Foot
Hydric Coverage (%)
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.2
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 16.6
MeD Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 28.9
PoD Poindexter loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 10.7
PoF Poindexter loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes No 40.6
100Total Coverage
Soil Unit Name and Description
USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Surveyof Cabarrus County FIGURE NO.6
I
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
Zion Church Road
Flowes Store Road
11/16/20171 inch = 2,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure6_HistoricSoil.mxd
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS HISTORIC SOIL SURVEY OF CABARRUS COUNY, NC, SHEET 6, DATED 1988.
2-Foot
Hydric Coverage (%)
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.2
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 16.6
MeD Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 28.9
PoD Poindexter loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 10.7
PoF Poindexter loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes No 40.6
100Total Coverage
Soil Unit Name and Description
FLOWES STORE
RD
SI
M
P
L
I
C
I
T
Y

R
D
MEXICO RDFALCON DRMEETING STKIWI CTBOSTWOOD LNZION
C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D ASHLEY DRP
I
N
E
Y

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
BREEZY LNCL
A
R
A

C
I
R CEDAR RIDGE LNMCANULTY DR
FIRETHORNE LNDAN
BROO
K
E
DRVANDERHORST DRFOOTHI
L
LS

LNBIRDSONG
RD
WATSON DR
WH
I
P
P
O
O
R
W
I
L
L

L
N ASHEBROOK DR
P
O
I
N
T
E

A
N
D
R
EW
S

D
R
OL
D

W
A
G
O
N

L
NHIDDEN PARK DRMARILYN C
T
National Wetland Inventory FIGURE NO.7
I
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
Streets
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
11/13/20171 inch = 1,000 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure7_NWI.mxd
REFERENCE: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR NORTH CAROLINA, DATED 2016.
BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY CABARRUS COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2016.
2-Foot
f,,500600600600600580560540
520
620640 6
6
0
680
68066056
0
BOSTWOOD LNFLOWES STORE RDMEETING STASHLEY DRCL
A
R
A

C
I
R VANDERHORST DRWATSON DR
FIRETH
O
R
N
E
L
N
OL
D

W
A
G
O
N

L
N
MARILYN C
T
BOSTWOOD LN
Jurisdicitional Boundaries FIGURE NO.8
I
400 0 400200 Feet
GCA
SCALE:
CWS PROJECT NO:
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
2017-0531
DJZ
Legend
Project Limits (71 ac.)
Perennial RPW Stream
Seasonal RPW Stream
Forested Wetland
!.Stream Source
FEMA Existing 100-Yr Floodplain
Streets
Parcels
,Indicates Flow
#SCP Stream Classification Point
!DP Data Point
f Culvert Openings
The Haven at Rocky RiverCabarrus County, North CarolinaJurisdictional Delineation
11/27/20171 inch = 400 feet
C:\Google Drive\2017\2017 Consulting\2017 Projects\2017-0531 Haven at Rocky River\JD\ArcGIS\Figure8_USACEJurisdictionalBoundaries.mxd
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY THE CABARRUS COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2016.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S WERE DELINEATED
(FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED AND MAPPED USING A
SUB-FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC. ON NOVEMBER 14, 2017. JURISDICITIONAL
FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
2-Foot
!.560540
580Waters of the US
Seasonal RPW
Stream B
133 lf
Waters of the US
Wetland AA - Adjancent
0.008 ac.
DP1Å 4
#SCP2
I
1 inch = 100 feetÅ2
Å
1
DP2 Å5Å6
#SCP1
Text
Waters of the US
Perennial RPW
Stream A
2,074 lf
Å3
DP3

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: Cabarrus City: Unincorporated Cabarrus
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.330129° N, Long. -80.556517° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: Rocky River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Rocky River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
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): 11/14/17

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 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: 2,074 linear feet: 12 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.

c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): .

2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: .

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.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS

A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.

1. TNW
Identify TNW: .

Summarize rationale supporting determination: .

2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: .

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):

This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent
waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.

A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.

If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.

1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW

(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches

(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
Tributary flows directly into TNW.
Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.

Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick 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: .

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.

(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: Perennial Flow.
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: Watershed is made up of mixed pine-hardwood forest.
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 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.
7Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine-hardwood forest, approximately 800 feet wide.
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: Exists in crenulation that has a confluence with Tributary A.
Ecological connection. Explain: No break in the surrounding mixed pine-hardwood forest habitat exists.
Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: .

(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.

(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: .

(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: .
Habitat for:
Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .
Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: .
Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .

3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:

Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Biological: habitat for organisms most
adapted to surving in wetlands. Chemical: ground water filtration. Physical: .

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):

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: Continuous bed and bank, presence of OHWM, hydric soils in the hyporheic zone, strong riffle-pool
sequencing, bedrock, sorting of bedload, strong baseflow, strong presence of macro-benthos.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 2,074 linear feet 12 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 flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: .

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

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: .

8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Other factors. Explain: .

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
Wetlands: acres.

F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
“Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR).
Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: .
Other: (explain, if not covered above): .

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
Wetlands: acres.

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
Wetlands: acres.

SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.

A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: .
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24K, Concord SE, 2017.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Current Soil Survey of Cabarrus County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Aerial Imagery, dated 2017.
or Other (Name & Date): Site photographs.
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:

C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Cabarrus City: Unincorporated Cabarrus
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.330129° N, Long. -80.556517° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: Rocky River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Rocky River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
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): 11/14/17

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 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: 133 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.008 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: A pond and wetland exist in the southeastern portion of the site where significant nexus has been severed by a
road and housing. No pipe connecting those features to downstream waters was observed (see photo page).

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.

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: 118 acres
Drainage area: 15 acres
Average annual rainfall: 45.0 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3.7 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 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) 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: .

Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary B flows west in a topogrpahic crenulation; the crenulation continues to
confluence with UT-Rocky River (Stream A) and then to Rocky River (TNW).

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.

.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1.

(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: 3 feet
Average depth: 0.3 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1 .

Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover:
Other. Explain: .

Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Banks are vegetated with native
trees/shrubs.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Riffle-pool-run complexes are present.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 10 %

(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 2-5
Describe flow regime: Continuous flow occurs during the winter months, generally 3 months out of the year.
Other information on duration and volume: .

Surface flow is: Discrete and confined . Characteristics: Continuous bed and bank.

Subsurface flow: No. 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: Watershed is made up of mixed pine-hardwood forest.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: None observed.

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.
7Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine-hardwood forest, approximately 40 feet wide.
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: 0.008 acres
Wetland type. Explain: PFO1, Forested wetland with broadleaf, deciduous vegetation.
Wetland quality. Explain: Moderate quality, impacted from historic property uses including logging.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: .

(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: No Flow . Explain: .

Surface flow is: Not present
Characteristics: Wetland exists in a vegetated, non-hydric, crenulation that provides connection with Perennial RPW
Stream A.

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: Exists in crenulation that has a confluence with Tributary A.
Ecological connection. Explain: No break in the surrounding mixed pine-hardwood forest habitat exists.
Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: .

(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: No Flow.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 100 - 500-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: no surface water, watershed is made up of mixed pine-hardwood forest. There are no
obvious sources of pollution.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: None observed.

(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine-hardwood forest, approximately 40 feet wide.
Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Forested, 100% cover.
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 ( 0.008 ) 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)
AA -No 0.008

Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Biological: habitat for organisms most
adapted to surving in wetlands. Chemical: ground water filtration. Physical: Forms hydrologic connection to downstream waters.

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: Adjacent Wetland AA exists in a topographic crenulation that has a topographic connection with Perennial RPW
Stream A.

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: Continuous bed and bank, presence of OHWM, soil-based evidence of hydric soils in hyporheic zone.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 133 linear feet 3 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 flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: .

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.008 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: .

8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Other factors. Explain: .

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
Wetlands: acres.

F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
“Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR).
Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:A pond and
wetland (DP2) exist in the southeastern portion of the site where significant nexus has been severed by a road and housing.
No pipe connecting those features to downstream waters was observed.
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: 0.03 acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
Wetlands: 0.013 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: 24K, Concord SE, 2017.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Current Soil Survey of Cabarrus County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Aerial Imagery, dated 2017.
or Other (Name & Date): Site photographs.
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: .

Date: 11/14/17 Latitude:
35.328602
Evaluator: DJZ/SAM Longitude:
-80.558896
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*
39.5
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =19 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
No =0 Yes =3
B. Hydrology Subtotal =9.5
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
1.5 1 0.5 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
No =0 Yes =3
C. Biology Subtotal =11
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
Sketch:
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
Notes:
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
*artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
Other
Stream Name:
SCP1/Stream A
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
Project/Site: The Haven at Rocky River
County: Cabarrus
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Perennial
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Date: 11/14/17 Latitude:
35.328160
Evaluator: DJZ/SAM Longitude:
-80.557666
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*
20.5
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =12 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
No =0 Yes =3
B. Hydrology Subtotal =5.5
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
1.5 1 0.5 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
No =0 Yes =3
C. Biology Subtotal =3
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Other
Stream Name:
SCP2/Stream B
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
Project/Site: The Haven at Rocky River
County: Cabarrus
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank*
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
*artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
26. Wetland plants in streambed
Sketch:
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
Notes: Forms at seep/rocky headcut (Photograph 2, Attachment C) - loses definiation at point B4
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Haven at Rocky River Cabarrus
DP1
11-14-17
Dependable Development, Inc.NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:Township 11, Central CabarrusSean Martin and Dan Zurlo
5-7concaveValley
Datum:NAD83-80.55810535.327867LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:PoF - Poindexter loam 15-45% slopes
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
DP1 is representative of Wetland AA
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1
4
6
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
398
0
137
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
12
Betula nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Fagus grandifolia
Betula nigra
Celtis occidentalis
Carpinus caroliniana
30 )
45
Indicator
Status
5
15
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
2
No
No
5
10
Fagus grandifolia
Campsis radicans
10Arundinaria tecta FACW
Microstegium vimineum 60
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
Lonicera japonica
75
15
36
38
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
80
22
(A)
(B)
(A)
240
0
88
Multiply by:
70
2.91Prevalence Index = B/A =
35
No FACU
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
23 9
10
0
15 Yes FAC
Yes
No
FACW
FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
66.7% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
13
=Total Cover5
5 Yes FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
?
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M40
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
20 PL
C Prominent redox concentrations
DP1SOIL
12-18 10YR 6/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
55
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 5/8
%
45
Matrix
C10YR 6/2
10YR 4/2 7.5YR 5/8
10YR 5/63-12
0-3
Loc2
M
60
Sandy
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
80 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Inidicators of hydric soil is present.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
DP2 is representative of Wetland BB
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Haven at Rocky River Cabarrus
DP2
11-14-17
Dependable Development, Inc.NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:Township 11, Central CabarrusSean Martin and Dan Zurlo
2-3concaveValley
Datum:NAD83-80.55435235.328452LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:PoD - Poindexter loam, 8-15%
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X10
=Total Cover20
Lonicera japonica
15 Yes
Yes
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
57.1% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
4
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
18 7
10
0
5 No FAC
Yes
No
FAC
FAC
495
0
100
Multiply by:
0
3.13Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Yes FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
165
25
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
25
25
63
15
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
Vitis rotundifolia
125
Smilax rotundifolia
No
No
15
5
Ligustrum sinense
Verbesina alternifolia
5Rubus argutus FACU
Microstegium vimineum 90
10
Quercus phellos
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
Celtis occidentalis
Carpinus caroliniana
30 )
35
Indicator
Status
5
15
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
5
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
57.1%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2
4
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
595
0
190
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soil is present.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey80C
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 4/2 7.5YR 5/80-18
DP2SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
20 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP3-upl
6
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
605
0
230
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
10
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
85.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Betula nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Liquidambar styraciflua
Betula nigra
Platanus occidentalis
Carpinus caroliniana
30 )
95
Indicator
Status
20
40
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
No
No
5
5
Polystichum acrostichoides
20Arundinaria tecta FACW
Microstegium vimineum 90
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
Lonicera japonica
115
23
13
58
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACW
Total % Cover of:
125
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
375
0
40
Multiply by:
190
2.63Prevalence Index = B/A =
95
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
48 19
30
0
5 No FAC
Yes
Yes
FACW
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
85.7% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
FACU
Yes
38
=Total Cover15
Vitis rotundifolia
5 Yes
Yes
FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP3-uplSOIL
5-18 10YR 3/4
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
7.5YR 4/3
10YR 3/3
3-5
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Inidicators of non-hydric soil is present.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0