20100849 Ver 1_401 Application_20101010

27963
SAME DAY
r
41"m I'll
MAW
now
'Wow so "Mow a a NEXT DAY
• ?u .,Arm ? ? FROM S & EC
11010 RAVEN RIDGE ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27614
846-5900
PICKUP DATE! `t "c) PICKUP TIME
t-
DRIVER.''-(- # OF PIECES>o'.?, WEIGHT
BILL TO :tsWeE'R RECEIVER 3RD PARTY
CAR VAN ROUND TRIP CHARGES
828-0303

COMPANY NAME
STREET ADDRESS-? Cie
CITY -? ST 1?. 'ZIP 7? r
CONTACT NAME i4 ,o z
PHON #
PROJECT
!
SIGNATURE PRINT' "r DATE r? ?? -TIME
???'
20
00849
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
October 15, 2010
S&EC Project # 11364
To: US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Jamie Shern
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
From: Nicole Thomson
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Annie Louise Wilkerson Nature Park, Wake County; NC
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Ian McMillan
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 2??
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 Pb @ 0 A OCT 1 5 2010
DENR - WATER OLIALI TY
WETLANDS AND cTCf,%,V-.°,TER BRANCH
On behalf of the owner, City of Raleigh, please find attached a complete application and supplemental information requesting written
concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that the activities
proposed below may proceed under Nationwide Permits 3 and General Water Quality Certifications 3687. We are also requesting a
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization. Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or require additional
information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Annie Louise Wilkerson Nature Preserve
Project Type Nature Park
Owner / Applicant City of Raleigh
County Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT to Honeycutt Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03-04-01
Index Number 27-20-(2)
Class WS-IV; NSW
USGS Cataloging Unit 03020201
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0.002
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.002
Total Stream hnpact (linear feet): 38 (6 LF temp.)
Attachments:
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
USGS Topographic Site Vicinity Map
NRCS Soil Survey Site Vicinity Map
Agent Authorization Form
DWQ Stream Determination letter (NBRRO #09-200)
Overall Site Plan
Impact Map Details
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) package
$240 Application Fee to DWQ
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
201 00 849
OFWA
O?
TE9pG
o -C
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
Corps:
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number: 3687
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
*Please note: The proposed impacts under For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
the NWP3/GC3687 do not require Approval Certification:
from DWQ as they are "Exempt" per the ® Yes ? No ? Yes ® No
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules (Road
crossings that disturb less than 40 linear
feet of riparian buffer)
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation ? Yes ® No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ? Yes ® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Annie Louise Wilkerson, MD Nature Preserve
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Raleigh
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
N/A
project no: QE
M U 'r 7LYr3^/i.4T£R ERANCH
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Raleigh
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 1539/791 & 1730/507
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. Stephen C. Bentley
3d. Street address: 333 Fayetteville St., Ste. 300
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27601
3f. Telephone no.: 919-996-4784
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Applicant as listed on the Agent Authorization; please
copy agent (S&EC) on all correspondence
4b. Name: Mr. Stephen C. Bentley
4c. Business name
(if applicable): City of Raleigh, Parks & Recreation Department
4d. Street address: 333 Fayetteville St., Ste. 300
4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27601
4f. Telephone no.: 919-996-4784
4g. Fax no.: N/A
4h. Email address: N/A
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Nicole J. Thomson
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
5c. Street address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27614
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 1719813398 & 1719914474
Latitude: 35.9227 Longitude: - 78.5926
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): (DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: +/- 148 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT to Honeycutt Creek/Falls Lake
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 27-20-(2); WS-IV; NSW, CA; 03-04-01
2c. River basin: Neuse River Basin (USGS Cataloging Unit 03020201)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The property has an existing homesite and associated outbuildings. Some of the property is cleared and/or maintained
(i.e. mowed periodically) and the remainder of the property is forested. There is also an existing pond on the subject
property.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.148 acres (6,448 sq. ft.)
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
6,382 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to create a Nature Preserve on the property formerly owned by Annie Louise Wilkerson, MD.
The proposed Nature Preserve will include a Park Center (Wilkerson House), nature trails, parking areas, open fields and
an observation deck on the existing pond on the site.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project will include 6 linear feet of stream impact associated with the proposed pipe replacement (NWP 3)
on the existing roadway to the property. The current pipe is a 48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) which will be
replaced with a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and headwalls. The pipe replacement will occur within the
existing pipe footprint; the 6 linear feet of additional stream impact is associated with the proposed temporary sand-bag
coffer dam which will be utilized during the pipe placement to ensure in-channel work is done in the dry. Erosion Control
requirements dictate the need for a rip rap pad at the outlet of the pipe which amounts to 32 linear feet of permanent
stream impact. The riparian buffer impacts associated with the pipe replacement and roadway widening are "exempt" as
there is less than 40 linear feet of impact proposed. The proposed observation deck on the existing pond will include 9
(nine) pile-driven, timber piers which the USACE does not consider to be an impact. The riparian buffer impacts
associated with the observation deck construction and the grassed path leading to the observation deck occur within a
riparian area that is currently maintained as grass. Per the "Table of Uses" for the Neuse River Buffer Rules, "water
dependent structures" are "allowable" as are greenway/nature trails. Proposed construction equipment will include
backhoes, dump trucks, excavators and the like.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by
the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this
property / project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: Mr. Martin Richmond (DWQ) conducted the ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
stream and Neuse River Riparian Buffer determination on
December 31, 2009. See attached Stream Determination
letter NBRRO #09-200.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what
type of determination was made?
On February 9, 2010, Mr. Thomas Brown and Mr. Tyler ? Preliminary ® Final
Crumbley confirmed the wetland and stream delineation
of the property. The Jurisdictional Determination (JD)
package is attached for review and signature.
Agency/Consultant Company: Soil and Environmental
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Consultants, PA
Name (if known): Mr. Stephen Ball Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Mr. Martin Richmond (DWQ) conducted the stream and Neuse River Riparian Buffer determination on December 31,
2009. See attached Stream Determination letter NBRRO #09-200. On February 9, 2010, Mr. Thomas Brown and Mr.
Tyler Crumbley confirmed the wetland and stream delineation of the property. The Jurisdictional Determination (JD)
package is attached for review and signature.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
? Yes ? Corps
W1 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W2 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ®T Sand Bag Coffer UT to Honeycutt ? PER ® Corps 2 6
Dam (temporary) Creek ® INT ? DWQ
S2 ® P ? T Riprap UT to Honeycutt ? PER ® Corps 2 32
Creek ® INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 38
3i. Comments: The applicant is proposing to replace the existing 48-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) with a new 48-inch
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with headwalls as part of the roadway improvements for the proposed Nature Preserve. The
new RCP and headwalls will be located within the same impact footprint as the existing CMP. Erosion Control requirements
dictate the need for a rip rap ad at the outlet of the pipe which amounts to 32 linear feet of permanent stream impact. The
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
additional 6 linear feet of proposed temporary impact (on the upstream side) is to install a temporary sandbag coffer dam so
that the pipe replacement activities will occur in the dry. The stream impacts are being conducted under a non-reporting
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3; concurrently, the applicant will be utilizing DWQ General Certification (GC) No. 3687 which does
not require approval from NC DWQ provided the proposed riparian buffer impacts to the Neuse River Riparian Buffers are
"exempt' activities per the "Table of Uses."

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: The applicant is proposing to place nine (9) pile-driven, timber piers into the existing jurisdictional
pond for the purposes of installing an observation deck. The USACE does not consider this activity as impacts to a
jurisdictional area.

5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 12
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g•
Buffer impact
number -
Reason for impact
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T required?
Roadway
131 ®P ? T Improvements to UT to Honeycutt ? Yes 425
2 1,130
(see impact Map 1) an existing stream Creek ® No ,
crossing

B2 ®P ? T Nature Trail and
Observation Deck Pond (drains to UT ? Yes
1,350
570
(see Impact Map 2) construction to Honeycutt Creek) ®No
El Yes
63 ?P?T ?No
6h. Total buffer impacts 3,545 1,700
6i. Comments: Note: Impact 1 is an "exempt" activity per the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules "Table of Uses" (road
crossings that impact less than 40 LF of riparian buffer).
Impact 2 is for a Nature Trail leading to the proposed Observation Deck on the existing pond. It is important to note
that the riparian buffer around the pond in this location is completely grassed and will be maintained as grass.
Additionally, per the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules "Table of Uses," "greenway trails" and "water dependent
structures" are "allowable" activities.
Page 7 of 12
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The applicant requested a detailed delineation of streams and wetlands prior to site plan development in order
to determine the extent and location of streams and wetlands on the site. The applicant is proposing to upgrade
the existing driveway crossing onto the Annie Louise Wilkerson, MD property and is proposing to replace the
existing 48-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) with a new 48-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with headwalls as
part of the roadway improvements for the proposed Nature Preserve. The new CMP and headwalls will be located
within the same impact footprint as the existing CMP. Erosion Control requirements dictate the need for a rip rap pad
at the outlet of the pipe which amounts to 32 linear feet of permanent stream impact. The additional 16 linear feet of
proposed temporary impact (inlet side) is to install a temporary sandbag coffer dam so that the pipe replacement
activities will occur in the dry. The stream impacts are being conducted under a non-reporting Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 3; concurrently, the applicant will be utilizing DWQ General Certification (GC) No. 3687 which does not
require approval from NC DWQ provided the proposed riparian buffer impacts to the Neuse River Riparian Buffers
are "exempt" activities per the "Table of Uses."
The applicant has also proposed an observation deck on the existing pond. The original location for this
observation deck was at the southern end of the pond near the existing dam. After reviewing the vegetation in
the area of the proposed deck, which consisted of mostly mature tree stands, the applicant relocated the
proposed observation deck to the northern end of the pond where the riparian buffer area is and has been
maintained as grass. The applicant also proposes a walking trail to the observation deck within this grassed
riparian area. The riparian buffer area will be returned to grass once the observation deck has been completed.
It should also be noted that the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will also apply additional
100, 50 and 30-foot buffers with additional 20-foot building setbacks on the drainage ways on the property,
some of which were determined to be either non-jurisdictional by the USACE or "not subject" to the Neuse
River Riparian Buffer Rules b the NC DWQ.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction of the proposed piped impact will consist of utilizing a sand-bag coffer dam. The coffer dam will be in place
for the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the pipe replacement. Orange protective silt fencing will be
placed outside of the impacted riparian buffer corridor to ensure protection of the non-impacted riparian buffer areas. It is
the intent of this plan for construction impact to take place during the dryer months of the year.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in-lieu fee program

pro
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool []cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? [] Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 12
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The proposed project is not anticipated to generate any additional ? Yes ® No
concentrated stormwater flows that do not already occur on site.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? Less than 24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project proposes to utilize GC 3687
(Maintenance) for the proposed pipe replacement at the existing stream crossing. GC 3687 does not have a stormwater
component associated with it, therefore, no stormwater management plan is required.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase 11
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
® No
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: The applicant has not confirmed with the State Clearinghouse whether ? Yes ? No
or not a SEPA document is required; however, based upon the minor impacts
associated with the proposed project, we do not believe that any of the current
requirements that would necessitate a SEPA review have been initiated.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
d
d
? Yes ® No
ar
s,
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Stan
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
We have reviewed the "DRAFT Internal Policy, Cumulative impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
Wetland Programs" document prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality on April 10, 2004, version 2.1. The draft
policy refers to residential subdivisions and small, in-fill commercial developments and does not specifically address
Nature Parks. It is very unlikely that this project will cause cumulative impacts. This project does not meet any of the
three criteria of private projects that can clearly result in cumulative impacts. The proposed project is for a Nature Park
which will, as expected, limit commercial and/or residential development on the 148-plus acre site. We anticipate that you
will advise us if a qualitative or quantitative impact analysis is required.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The buildings on the property (former residence and outbuildings) are already serviced by an existing septic system.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
? Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The NC-Natural Heritage Programs Virtual Workroom was used to search for elemental occurrences of state and
federally protected species in the vicinity of the project. There was one listed elemental occurrence of a federally
threatened species within 2 miles of the center of the project area, but not on the project site itself.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The proposed project is in Raleigh, Wake County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that would support EFH
(i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.)
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
" Records checks at the State Historic Preservation Office or the Office of State Archeology were not performed.
Utilizing Google Earth and NC National Register Points, the closest structure is the Falls of Neuse Manufacturing
Company which is approximately 1.5 miles from the center of the project. No structures were noticed during the wetland
evaluation.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? http://www.nefloodmaps.com/
October 15,
Nicole J. Thomson 2010
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applica ent s ignature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only i orization letter from the applicant
is provided.
Page 12 of 12
Project No. FIGjure I - 1:24K USGS
I 1 364.W I
Topographic Quadrangle
Consultants, PA
Project Mgr.: Wilkerson Nature Freserv ` Soil & Environmental Web Page: o+naw.SandEC.corn
515 City of Raleigh 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
scale: Wake County, NC [phone] • [phone]
1 - 2,000,
Wake Forest Quadrangle
C e F• NI, v ,l ,• '' '
i , A "' 1 ,�. AA ` ' R. .w ..iii �"�r",i�r •� � p ► _" Jf
Ce F
JJty 1 Lo
`�
Lo CeS2
m.
Ar
I: �• �t„ a r. Y fi yyi y
,a" 'Y �+� 'w♦�j ,.` CSC
ofd.,,
,. CI83 4t
�� �� �. '-`. -_.• AV'
C C2
ApV
r
m �=
GeF �� �C A
CeD'T r s.& - "
.. _
4 f 4E
i t _
Ce 1)
NZ
WmE C�,
Ap62 ,
- ✓ .i , 1}i °per\.
CeC i " Cga
ApC
ti Jl1 �J f +
4`�
32 �'F Cgr,Z

Environmen
Consultants,
Name; C + o r i%g.WIf%
Address: 3-3 17a ? e-kvr if e- 3L -u A
Phone: C - t 1 co 9f ?Rg
Project Name/Description AI-W 41&4,? Pre ,6 S&EC Project It
Date: s 110
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmngton District
P.C. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: T+M i C Stt EjeM
Field Office: IZA i-1 &&K
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current o e owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA to
act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to hwdsh upon request
su lemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The 34k. day of
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC
to arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
?JCtw C,. 41tw`?rl4iy
Print Property Owner's Name Property o is Signature
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly cc: Mr, Steven Ball
NCDENR - DWQ Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigj NC 27604
236 LePWliip Court, Suite C 3817-E lxwadde Drive
Concard, NC 28025 Qreemboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phoae: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Paz, [phone]
BU Blanks To Be Filled In By The Current Landowner
A744
R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
January 11,2010
Bob Zarzecki
Soils & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd
Raleigh, NC 27614
NBRRO#09-200
Wake County
WIN:
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233) ? Tar-Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0269)
0 Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination rl Isolated Wetland Determination
Project Name: Wilkerson Nature Preserve
Location/Directions: Subject property is a private residential tract located on north side of
Raven Ridge Rd west of Falls of Neuse
Subject Stream: UT to Falls Lake
Date of Determination: December 31, 2009
Feature E1UP* Not
Subject Subject Start@ Stop@ Stream
Form Pts. Soil
Survey USGS
To
S1 I X Fla `Sl' X
S2 P X Throughout x X
PI** X X**
P2** X X**
S3 I X Throughout 28.5 X
S4 I X Fla `S4' Pond 3 Dam X
P3 n/a x X X
S4 cont. I X Fl `S4-A' X X
S5
(Barton
Creek P X Throughout x X
S7 E X X
S8 E X X
S9
offsite I X Flag `S9' X
*F111P = EphemeraUlntermittent/Perennial
** These pond features are built into the natural drainage of Stream Feature S2 and are subject to buffer rules.
AMP
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet ~,nmalerquaNty.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% RecycleV 0% Post Consumer Paper
Wilkerson Nature Preserve
Wake County
January 11, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water
exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndl Karoly I DWQ
Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination
by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the buffer rate may ask for
an ad judicatory .hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are
hereby notified that the 0-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party fine-lading
downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant
conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6711. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
The (owner/future owners) should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 4041401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-733-1786, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-$76-8441.
Respectfully,
t
Martin Ric and
Environ ntal Specialist
cc: Wetlands/ Stormwater Branch, 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
RRO/SWP File Copy
rA
fit.,
MLX,kvAliwr,dmqpt
..-Z- ---
or
if
F� v - �77 R, P W, A)

� ^� s: + a�
is
4
:':4.
� ^� s: + a�

9T94-61£ (MT :Xed
91,49-6T£ ((616) :9uogd
9T5b2' eurroaaa g3aoN '6aa-9
OgT 9}rnS
9eraQ J$9.10d X011909g 003
I'd°d /NDIS3a HD
Ndld 11VN3n0
HI-60 :'ON 1J310Nd
01-0£-9 :31VU
HD131VN 30 A11J
3n213S321d ]NnIVN !aW NOSMINIIM 3SIA01 31NNd
0
0
Ln
CL.
Q
Z
V
? w o
-0
O
Z
b ?
4q ih /,? j pp ,/'?a
4.W
I§M
,
\ ??fippb \ lfiti , •? i R[
.01 Ile,
it ;t

11
R
Pe
;
I
i
CI t; hj ?
IR ?
S
1
--' Ir
1
1
11

W

_. - ? 1111 `:\ •-----

ae-
i ?. 11
rli?yr
?i
/ =iY6
- ? E

fog c
g 11 1 r
e i l .y r r

IM

R
fle I
e
all
fail
jEC /MYE°
Ile ZZ

eY€ i

/
i
i

J
LU
J
Q
U
Cn
z r/
?r/ j ??•j = ? YY
gei?

, u
I
c \
\
\
gel
/ / ®q } \ \
s' *10
o-? &

\ Nk \

AIN
9191,-6 TE 6 T6 : XRJ
9TI.9-6T6 6T6 :auogd
915,40 auT[Ollgj g;aoN '.X.reD
00T a;rng
aeraQ jsa.ZOj LOua20g 00p,
a'd'd 'NDIS3a HD
SNOIlIaNOD DNIlSIX3 - l dbW IDVdWl I
IZI-60 :'ON I-)IIO 1d
01-0£-8 :11Va
H`)131VN AO AlIJ
]ANISINd 1NnldN 'aW NOSNDIIIM 3SInOl IINNd
/d /o 1 f? I
I
AlI?
/WX
"'?'oe ?,
A//1111 •-?? I l 1
\ 7 7*1
lvl/ 411
/ a 1 1
iA°/??
z
0
tz
z
C)
V
V
z
w
Q
V
CL
T
9T5b-6TE 6T6 :XvJ
9 TZ9-6 TE (616) :9uogd
ma vurroaeo Rvom 'drvo
OZT 97!ng
9AT.IQ 199.ZOJ dau989g 003
IHD
I % F-I
/V///
/ y
/
W
Z
LLu
Ol
LLJ
C
`J
O
U
Z
O
V
Q
LLJ
//
?i i l / / ?° /? / ?i ,? /I ?./ I -Cl X//? QIQ
I dvw 1Dddwl
171-60 :•ON 1J3(ONd
0 L-Z L-0 L :31V4
H9131VN 30 AID
3AN3SRId 3NAIVN 'aW NOSN3>IIIM 3Sin0l 31NNV

11 /C'4
L

O -?e LA:

'JQ
C'L

\Z %ll? ??O
J
WZW
?'u aa W $ Qtzcl
cc v
Q: 1
o< l l ??
N
/ _ ?p A W
/ 1 I I ? i
Oc
LWJ
W
o W \ ) / / ?/ 1 / I
LL:
?/ ?"?- ter ?/? -?? /,?/ / I I 1 / I //
?LL 2 ? vN
ir-- o
Ix 30; car
?Z>: <.?LY 41 O
-CA
W? y Z IL ?4: W-C <
< 2Z??'?°6 <W? a a
O Z? y co Wa?? a
W N 3a NWj <
N . < _pp Q. cccc 0 <N? j,? OZO <
V1
2 WJT U V O
O ° y p
?hW pp ??? ?<-y
Z Z WOm < p0 UCW< =OO<<
co t5r- '3 t
o a y? 0 O O z a° < Z Ii <a O?
0Q. (n
N 0? OW ?p 2? O
t1?Z yUZZ U 0 C3
(n I-C ?L.-u WmOm4 m? ?W
Ix. a. -j in {. FWC?WIW<U)->.Z °Z ??a1a
tFA Z ?O? ?W Z0 WU? ? z_?i :.vii aiIx m
.? N -4 ai 46 od oS ?
W
J
Q
Q
2
U?
Q

O
cr a'
Z
Co W N
Z N
Co W ?V w
W
W
xN?Z WZW
?
?Z 2U
U?
-' N
'
2 Z
C
LL
LL
Q
a
W
mJ
ZZ aZ
NNZU
NN ZU
Q
V
CL
9I9,G -6 is (6 T6) : Xwd
9Tz9-6TE (6T6) :auvgd
9TgZZ VUTToaea q}rOM '.CSUD
OZT a?TnS
adr.IQ ;sa.ZOJ LOU029H OOfi
Vd iNOIS3a HD
SNOIlIaNOJ DNIlSIX3 - Z ddW 1JVdWl
I Z l-60 :'ON 1D31021d
O I-OE-8 :31vu
117131VN 30 loll')
]ANISINd ]NnI`dN 'aW NOSNINIIM 3SIrIOl IINNb
X V)/
/
I/
41*
10
°z rn ro
NN ??II ?JI? / ?Ll
1vol
z ° 3 ? ? /? /I / ( IJ/I II I / / ? \ GSM ? ? ?,• "'II ?
c--?-ic ?_? I
/
?J
0
w
Q
U
V)
V)
Z
O
O
Z
O
V
V
Z
X
W
N
?tt
Q
V

9T9b-61£ (6T6) :Xfad
9TL9-6T8 (6T6) :auor{d
ma auTToaaD 4}-tom '.Grey
00T a7TnS
aATJa ;sa.roJ doua82a Oof,
'd'd 'NDIS3a HD
? l l l ice, l?? //
/Ap
i zo II o °N?
/bo? WW° oQQ
Z He LL:
aoo:-
6 N N n
Z'N300
Wcanoo
Z dbW l:)ddWl
121-60 :'ON I:)IIO 1d
0 [-0f-8 Alvcl
HDII]VN 10 AIID
]ANISINd 3NAIVN 'aW NOSNINIIM 3SInOl 3INNd
/
III I ?i I; I ? /
I
II I ? ? I
'Q -A
/
% I I I I T 1 ??
L----NO??M?
\N LU
??-

W ee e
?i o 0 0
e co 0
1 Li
LL 4: LL:
a
U
I a •- N
I W ? N N
o
I Z 2 2
a
' Up ?
w
.ee
e
a
Z
o '
f-r=
Ue
az ,'

?N^
mluN CO WN ZO
WZW WZW oa
?NX ?N? a?
Z Z
Q
w
L
w
Q
W
It
N m
W W (Ln °
N0 WO
?vN Z?
II II II II
NN Za
uz
0
IT
I I
w
Q
U
Q
V
CL
T
,r' ? .Y"/ ? r ?, r 4 ? ? _ ?? - ? d? t?l 1 r zi ? .. .. ? ,_ S,
1 1 r. ?' r ?j! n D
. 40L
••?? ? "? -? f.rr. l ? r?° i ? - r?t - 'I 1} ?? i ?• ?I j • `F¢}'a*• ?e 1
,?? r ? s? o,.?.., ?.. I I . ,?• ?j ? ?"_?' ` ,. " , -? ,"? ., ':_ { _X' Irv S • t k ?.? ?T ?!
• ? ° r Y !.. y " H" r. sri.a.r ;) • ?- ?? ..d .? r lrr?
?'•'? ? , :ti?,? ,'?, try ? +?,,. •-? ?_ } ?.I• ? r ?? !°" ti?i
. '_ :. ? ,_.. i1 ?: ) his ..I • ? J`'
- fit', ' ` ? ? .r .? ,'c •.:"e'?. a? ? ? ? ?-- ,' ?.--{.?c--?
,t'' •_ i # , 1,: _ ., ,_t
•
J 4 „ ams
_ I.. ?,. '•) c ??. `Y U S +?.:'*? .. jr "' xt? ?'.: ?J vak.° r: ; l _ r' 4
f ?/,r? ?'I f ' JZ I.? r'f ???ilt ?w• . ,?"`sj , tij'?? +?`i` S ? ?*•+?. ` ?'
V l
r ,,,?? r
k,
F?
r }, - . ry
N, J
a ' ` ' l 1L. ?1 ?1; I t.:_. ,t r? r__ t /z. Itir} ^ r+
Project No. Figure I - I :24K USGS
11364.W I
Topographic Quadrangle
Project Mgr.:
sB Wilkerson Nature Preserve Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
City of Raleigh 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
Scale: Wake Count NC [phone] • [phone]
Y' Web Page: avww,SandEC.com
I 2,000'
Wake Forest Quadrangle
1 2/01 5/09
CeF'
F
IKfpP.
• Ao
1� Cie
CeF`- t
" Lo
Lo
P CeS2
tP. • _
CeB2�� n ' � � • 1 ,r O2k g r � f` r'�
. :. CICS
Loo f,4.
CI83
M
coal
jl
c Cl7C,. ` Cer�2
CpC2 "*�y
Apg
t m 4r
,� � , _ til w ' H ,,• '''! '...
CeF CeC2 ?Cel Cg@2 '
Ce =� CIB3CeD
_A> � rX •
wmE - C ..
Ap82 CA ,
CeF ti c9c
ApC
c
Of
, • J// 41 L
CARI�
t`ol`l 'C@

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Wilkerson Nature Preserve S81EC Proi. 11364.W1 Date: 12/16/09
Applicant/Owner: City of Raleigh County: Wake
Investigator: SB State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID: Wetland DP
If needed, explain on reverse.
?GVG 1/111V7?
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidamber s"ciflua Tree FAC+ 9.
2. Pinus taeda Tree FAC 10.
3. Sedge sp. herb FACW 11.
12.
13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks:

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. _ 1 (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:
Welland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consuftants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
'Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Wilkerson Nature Preserve Plot ID: Wetland DP

...,.?
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase): Cecil Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapluduits Confine Mapped Type? ! Yes k No
Profile Descritenon:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Color Mottle
Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast ' Structure, etc.
0-7 10 YR 512 10YR 4/1 10% Sand Clay Loam
7-13 2.5Y 513 San Clay Loam
13-20 2.5Y 613 7.5YR 5/8 20% San Clay Loam
20+ 2.5Y 712 7.5YR 5/8 30% Sandy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture-Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WCTI Aurae nr_TLmum AT1AA1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes _ No is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes - No X Yes _ No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes _ No
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Performed By. Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Wilkerson Nature Preserve S&EC Pro!. 11364.W1 Date: 12/16109
Applicant/Owner: City of Raleigh County: Wake
Investigator: SB State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significanfly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID: Upland DP
If needed, explain on reverse.
VC/2CTATIf%U
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liguidambar styraciNua Tree FAC+ 9.
Pinus taeda Tree FAC 10.
3. Pinus echinata Tree NI 11.
4. Fagus grandifolla Tree FACU 12.
5. Ilex opaca Tree FAG 13.
6. Oxydendrum arboreum Tree NI 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAG): 25%
Remarks:
Wvnonr ntw
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more.required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. - (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.)
Remarks:
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Wilkerson Nature Preserve Plot ID: Upland DP
SOILS

Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase): Cecil Field Observations
N
Y
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults o
es _
Confirm Mapped Type? _X_
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0-18 2.5Y 514 Sand Clay Loam
18-24 2.5Y 516 Sand Clay
24+ 2.5Y516 2.5Y 613 10% Sand Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosoi Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sutfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
11
WCTI AWr%Q nOTCI UMPATIAM
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? - Yes X No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? _ Yes X No
Remarks:

rcy.
vironm
Consultants, PA
%usm: (919) 846-M - lrax: [phone]
Address: 333 Pty e kv,,11 e-- Sw.k d - - --
94 Vie! y , .,u 27Gc?
Phone:
Project Name/Description: ALL 1114-w--e P? 5 S&EC Project # /I 3 (o y
Date:
The Department of the Army
US. Army Corps of Bngineers, Wilmington District
F.Q. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn,
Field Office:
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Wham It May Concern:
1, the current roe owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA to
act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. Me SO-- day of
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by SUC staff. You should call S&EC
to arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
C.- 8t.w''??ey
Print Property Owner's Name Property is Signature
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly cc: W. Steven Ball
NCDENR - DWQ Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleii?h, NC 27604
M . ??rrA u
Graea4 X11-1CE:
236 LePbtttip Court, Suite C 3817-E Uwadde Drive
Cork 4 NC 28025 Gnse 6m, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]t?5 Phow: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
AUanks To Be Filled In By The Current Lan w r
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 Fonn Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: All tribs. other than feature S4 and pond 3
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (tat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.923484° , Long. -78.597913° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Falls Lake
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Falls Lake (Neuse River)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
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): February 09, 2010
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There I. "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): t
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: 6800 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 1.48 acres.
Wetlands:.149 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):;
? 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 111 below.
'- For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
(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: tcct
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: Fick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: PAN
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: MAW
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: M. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM° (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to deter
? High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scutn line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (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 ),vaterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: JIM. Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 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 Fick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
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: Multiple flows during end of growing season.
? 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: 5800 linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters:.75acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: Ponds.
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.
10 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 II1.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Discrete connection that directly connects wetlands to perennial channels.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area:.149 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 TN Ws.
0 Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.." or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE[ WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section II1.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CN'A jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus' standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Feature S4 and Pond 3
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.923484° , Long. -78.597913° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Falls Lake
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Falls Lake (Neuse River)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
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): February 09, 2010
SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There W AO "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 hre -wafers o/the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent 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: 6800 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 1.48 acres.
Wetlands:.149 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):'
[] Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
r Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least -seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
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 I II.D.1.; otherwise, see Section 111.6 below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is -adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section 1II.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 13.3 square miles
Drainage area: 24.4 acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Identify flow route to TNWs: Feature flows into Barton Creek, then into Falls Lake.
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters arc ,1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional infonnation regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g.. tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
connection.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: .
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: Stable Banks, with some erosin on Non JD
Presence of run/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain: Some present.
Tributary geometry: w '
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 3-4 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 'g?10
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: KtJ!1t. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
® changes in the character of soil ?
® shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to detenn
Q High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? tine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: none noted.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: P4',($j?st. Explain:
Surface flow is: am,
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick LUt. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Detennination 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 arc Fick 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: 'Fick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
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:The non RPW
tributary have the capacity to hold/carry floodwaters to a TNW resulting in the ability to reduce overall flood waters within the
TNW. In addition, these features can provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for species present in the TNW by providing
an initial source of carbon and other nutrients available for nutrient cycling within the aquatic regime. Leaf packs, insect larvae and
other life sustaining components are contributed to the TNW from these features. The overall physical and biological integrity of
the TNW are enhanced by the non RPW. .
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.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 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: 500 linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters:.85acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.6 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 IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED ]INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLV):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 111. 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.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 solel 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:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous detennination(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: