20071801 Ver 1_401 Application_20071007

r
October 18, 2007
~ North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC, 27699-1650 ~ 7 -
Rummel,
Attention: Garcy Ward, Washington Field Office
IQepper
Reference: PCN for the S.T. Wooten Mills Property Borrow Pit
~ Dahl, LLP
I am submitting, herewith, five (5) copies of Pre-Construction Notification,
w;n;a„. K. F/enma»„ natural resources review, and figures of the S.T. Wooten Mills Property Borrow Pit site. This
emer;as project contains two (2) wetlands (Wetland B and Wetland C in Figure 1) that will be
impacted during borrow pit mining activities. These wetlands were reviewed on August 215
Dai~;d w wauaa and August 22"x, 2007 by William Wescott of the United States Army Corps of Engineers
aobe,r~. Ha~berr (COE) and Garcy Ward of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) respectively.
Stephe» c. ze»rz These wetlands were deemed isolated by both representatives and the combined acreage is
~. M;rhaei ~»rre,~ less than one (1) acre.
Th»mas F. M„hie, Thank you for your assistance on this project and if you have any questions feel free
Ja,»e~ A. zu» to contact me at [phone] or [e-mail]
Charles M. Eastrr; Jr.
Jnseph A. Ram,nraivski, J,:
Micluu•I L. Kr»~saw
Lars E. I/ill
J. Tonnnp Pencn,A, J,:
i
Very truly yours,
wndve,~.,
M;rhae
Marti,. c. xad~e,~.,~ RUMMEL • KLEPP R & KAHL, LLP
Kenneth il. Goon
~

John n. d'Eyagn;er ~
Barbara J. Hnnge
" ~
ch,~sr.~ja,e, F wrigr,r WiNiam (Pete) Stafford, P.W.S.
11\\
o,ve» c., Pee,y Project Scientist
Nmiry R. Bergeron
Stm,rt /1. Mc»,tKr»»e~y
. C C~ (~ ~~!1C~

Dai~;d G. 1/mrsrny p
Henry J. Bankard, J,:
James F R;de»or,,; ~~: p ~ T 2 2 2(107
Robert /. Andry.czak
Raymond M. !(arbeson, Jr. D~NR - WA~H G-~iJr1L,IlY
B. Keith Skinner ~~~sT~~~~~N
Karen B. Kah!
Seyed A. Snadnt
John C. Moore
Sonya Y. Bror+'n
Er;c M. /Vein
Todd E. Rmsenbrrgcr
UOilliid ~~ La»Zlnl
Thomas M. He;!
900IZidgrfe;d lbii~r
Spite 350
RaleiEh, North Crn~eliaa
37(09-3960
Ph: 919-878-9560
hits: 9l r1-790-,4'3,5'3
tvivw.rkk~'ngi»ee,:cm»+ WES
cc HTW,JTP
H9Word\Document\S.T. Wooten\Jurisdictional Determinations\Corr\DWQ Permil-001.doc
Baltimore, MD Richmond, VA Virginia Beach, VA Staunton, VA Fairfax, VA Newport New.c, UA
Raleigh, NC Concord, NC Dover, DE York, PA Norristown, PA Keyser, WV Washington, DC

Project C201279 Craven County
Agreement Between
Morris Investment Properties, LLC
And
Rummel, Kleppler & Kahl, LLP
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
I c`.S hereby agree to let Rummel, Kleppler
& Kahl, LLP C nsultanting Engineers act as an authorized agent to sign on my
behalf duties related to my property for the above said project.
Rummel, Kleppler & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineer
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date• 9- ~ l• 1 ~ ~?
!bC PI,yN
ti ~~~
z '
~~
d~J p~a~
Morris Investment Properties, LLC
109 Swift Creek Road
Vanceboro, NC 28586
Date: 9 - / 7 - 4 7
PO Box 2408 tiVilson, NC 27894-2408 2ti2.291.5165 Fax [phone]

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
~07- 1 80 1
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ® Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information D
d ~~~~ v L5
1. Owner/Applicant Information ~~r 2 2 2001
Name: S.T. Wooten Corporation, Terry Morns ,,,,_ DENR. w.*.._
Mailing Address:
C
Telephone Number: 252-291-5165 Fax Number: 252-243-0900
E-mail Address: larr_y.rod~ers(c~stwcorp.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name Pete Stafford, P.W.S
Company Affiliation: Rummel Klepper and Kahl Engineers (RK&K Engineers)
Mailing Address: 900 Ridgefield Drive Suite 350 Raleigh NC 27609
Telephone Number: 919-878-9560 Fax Number: 919-790-8382
E-mail Address: pstafford(~rkkengineers.com
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: S T Wooten Borrow Pit on the Morris/Mills Property
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1-029-036
4. Location
County: Craven Nearest Town: Vanceboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): See attached location Map
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): North 35 d 13 m 50 s West 77 d 06 m 10
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 95.476
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Swift Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse River Basin (03020202090060)
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httpa/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminl'maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:
Site is currently a cut over and has been historically used for tree farming in the past. The
vicinity is
Page 6 of 13

comprised of scattered residential and agriculture.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: S.T.
Wooten Corp.
will use the sand on site for the 43 connector project located in New Bern. The sand
excavation will
occur by utilizing heavy machinery such as: backhoe bulldozer, dump truck, and associated
moving equipment
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To excavate sand for use on the 43 Connector
Prod ect
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Isolated wetlands. No Corps jurisdiction and no previous request for jurisdictional
determinations have
Requested
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit request are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
Page 7 of 13

and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Wetlands B and C have been
reviewed
and deemed as isolated wetlands via the USACE (William Wescott) and DWQ (GarcY Ward).
The
proposed impacts to these wetlands will occur via excavation. The total acreal;e is below the
DW
threshold that would recLuire compensatory mitigation
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Wetland B excavation 0.39 Isolated
Wetland C excavation 0.11 Isolated

* List each impact separately and identuy temporary impacts. tmpacts mauae, out are not urmicu ~u: uicc„a~~~~~u ~,~a~ ~~~~, s,a.,.,,~, .~~~,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:/iwww.fema.~.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 13.33 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.50 ac
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(leases ecify)

Page 8 of 13

- -
* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. tmpacts metuae, nut are nor nmirea ro: curverrs anu ass~ciaicu , ~N-,QY,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www_us_~s.~ov. Several Internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ~~~~i~~~-.topozone.cotn,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)

Type of Impact* Area of

Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limrted to: trtt, excavation, areagrng,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Page 9 of 13

The excavation activities associated with the protect will drain the isolated wetlands labeled
B and C
on the delineation man.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
Page 10 of 13

[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htt~l/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrpr'index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land?
Yes ^ No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ^ No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 11 of 13

Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; 'Lonel extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
No impervious acreage on site.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage is associated with this project.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ^ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
Page 12 of 13

It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
V icant/Agent's Signature l ~ Date
(Agent's ignature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

07- 1 80 1
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
The project study area consists of two (2) separate parcels. The first parcel is an
approximately 45-acre tract owned by Morris Investment Properties LLC (Morris Property). The
second parcel is located adjacent to the southeast corner of the Morris property and is an
approximately 95-acre tract owned by Ms. Diane B. Mills (Mills Property) (Figure 1). The project
study area consists of an early successional area that was previously clear cut for timber harvest
on the Morris property, the Mills property is a mixed pine hardwood forest consisting of mainly
juvenile oak and pine species. Access to the project study area is through an existing dirt path off
NC 43 (Weyerhauser Road) on the northwest side of project study area.
The project study area was reviewed on May 3, 2006 and reevaluated on Apri13, 2007 by
RK&K biologist Pete Stafford, P.W.S. Mr. Stafford is a Project Scientist with a B.S. in
Environmental Science and is also a certified Professional Wetland Scientist from the Society of
Wetland Scientist. Prior to the initiation of field efforts, available resources were reviewed,
including U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, National Wetland
Inventory mapping, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil mapping (Figure 2).
2.0 Jurisdictional Evaluation
The project study area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetland areas
using the three parameter approach (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
jurisdictional hydrology) as outlined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Based on this approach, one potential jurisdictional wetland was delineated within the
Morns property and two areas within the Mills property. Evidence of jurisdictional hydrology
was noted within 12 inches of the soil surface. The wetlands were delineated and located with
GPS equipment meeting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specifications for wetlands mapping.
The approximate extent and location of the wetlands are displayed on Figure 1. It is our
understanding that there will be no impacts within 50 feet of these wetland areas.
2.1 Hydric Soils
Soils within the delineated wetland areas located on the Morns property are
mapped as Augusta fine sandy loam (Ag) and is classified a "B" hydric soil. Soils within the
delineated wetland areas located on the Mills property are mapped as Tarboro sand (TaB) and is
not classified as a hydric soil. Soil cores were randomly collected throughout the wetland areas
and exhibited hydric characteristics (Munsell color 10 YR 3/1 and lOYR 4/2). Soils within the
proposed borrow pit are mapped as Tarboro sand (TaB) and did not exhibit hydric characteristics
(Munsell color l OYR 6/6).
2.2 Hydrophytic Vegetation
Due to the recent clear cutting activities on the Morris property, vegetative fauna
available is limited and hydrophytic vegetation identified onsite consisted of red maple (Acer
rubrum), giant cane (Arundinana gigantea), and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Jurisdictional Determination Morris and Mills Borrow Pit Site
Prepared by: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP

Vegetation within the areas of the proposed borrow pit was not hydrophytic in
nature and consisted of young early successional species commonly associated with areas that
have been clear cut, such as: loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), northern red oak (Quercus rubs),
American holly (//ex opaca), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), and blackberry.
Vegetation on the Mills property consisted of hydrophytic vegetation identified
as red maple, giant cane, gallberry (Ilex coriacea) and green brier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Vegetation within the areas of the proposed borrow pit was not hydrophytic in
nature and consisted of mixed hardwood forest species such as: loblolly pine, northern red oak,
blackjack oak, and water oak (Quercus nigra)
2.3 Evidence of Jurisdictional Hydrology (Hydrologic Indicators)
Hyrdrologic indicators were prevalent throughout the delineated wetland area.
These indicators consisted of inundation (up to 2 inches), saturation in the upper 12 inches,
oxidized root channels, and water-stained leaves. No hydrologic indicators were discovered
within the proposed borrow pit area.
2.4 Jurisdictional Stream Channels
No jurisdictional stream channels were present within the proposed borrow pit or
within 50 feet of the proposed borrow pit.
3.0 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation
RK&K evaluated the project study area for potential habitat for federal listed Threatened
(T) or Endangered (E) species known to occur in Craven County (Figure 3). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) lists seven species offered federal protection with ranges considered to
extend into Craven County: sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica), Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), leatherback turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), and west Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Records held by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were reviewed to see if the presence of any of these
species had been previously recorded (review date 22 May 2007).
Sensitive Jointvetch (T) habitat is generally associated with freshwater to slightly brackish tidal
marshes and wet ditches along the central North Carolina Coast. No tidal marshes or wet ditch
areas are present within the proposed borrow pit area. Although a wetland area is located within
the project study area, this area is not tidal and not considered suitable habitat. Biological
Conclusion: No Effect
Shortnose star eon (E) Shortnose sturgeon inhabit rivers and estuaries. It is an anadromous fish
that spawns in the coastal rivers along the east coast of North America from the St. John River in
Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida. It prefers the nearshore marine, estuarine and riverine
habitat of large river systems. Potential habitat for this species does not exist within the project
study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
American alligator (T) The American alligator is found from North Carolina to the Rio Grande in
Texas. Alligators are usually found in freshwater, in slow-moving rivers. They are also found in
fresh to slightly brackish lakes, ponds, rivers, and marshes. They can tolerate salt water for only
2
Jurisdictional Determination Morris and Mills Borrow Pit Site
Prepared bv: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP

brief periods because they do not have salt glands. Potential habitat for this species does not exist
within the project study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Leatherback turtle (E) The leatherback is distributed world-wide but nowhere in large numbers. It
is common in waters along the North Carolina coast during certain times of the year. The
leatherback nests circum-globally, primarily in the tropics. Nesting in the United States occurs
mainly in Florida, but nesting has also occured in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
An open ocean species, it sometimes moves into shallow bays, estuaries and even river mouths.
The preferred food is jellyfish. The diet also includes sea urchins, squid, shrimp, fish, blue-green
algae and floating seaweed. The leatherback needs sandy nesting beaches backed with plants and
sloped so that the crawl to dry sand is not too far. Nest size varies from 50 to 170 eggs.
Incubation lasts from 53-74 days. Potential habitat for this species does not exist within the
project study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagle (T) Bald Eagles have mottled brown and white feathers under their wings and on their
head, tail and breast. The distinctive white head and tail feathers do not appear until Bald Eagles
are about 4 to 5 years old. Specimens are generally 29 to 42 inches long, can weigh 7 to 15
pounds, and have a wing span of 6 to 8 feet. Bald Eagles live near large bodies of open water
such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are plenty offish to eat and tall trees for
nesting and roosting. Potential habitat for this species does not exist within the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Red-cockaded wood eu cker (E) typically have nest cavities that are constructed in the heartwood
of living pines, generally older than 60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease.
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly,
longleaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines. Development of a thick
understory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential nesting and foraging
habitat does not exist within the project study area. While loblolly pine was present within the
project study area, the stands were found to be too young (less than 30 years) to be considered
suitable foraging or nesting habitat. Biological Conclusion: No Effect.
West Indian manatee (E) The West Indian Manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal.
Adults average about 10 feet long and weigh 1,000 pounds. They have no hindlimbs, and their
forelimbs are modified as flippers. Manatee tails are flattened horizontally and rounded. Their
body is covered with sparse hairs and their muzzles with stiff whiskers. Manatees inhabit both
salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (1.5 meters to usually less than 6 meters) throughout their
range. They may be encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and on
occasion have been observed as much as 3.7 miles off the Florida Gulf coast. Potential habitat for
this species does not exist within the project study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
3
Jurisdictional Determination Morris and Mills Borrow Pit Site
Prepared by: Rummel. Klepper & Kahl, LLP

4.0 Summary
One delineated wetland area within the project study area on the Mills parcel has been
identified that runs linear along the western parcel boundary (Figure 1, Wetland A). Two
delineated wetland areas have been identified on the Mills property (Figure 1, Wetland B and
Wetland C). No borrow pit excavation activities will occur within 50 feet of these wetland areas.
The wetlands were delineated and located with GPS equipment meeting U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers specifications for wetlands mapping. There are no jurisdictional stream channels within
the project study area or the existing access road. A review of the project study area indicates
potential habitat is not present for sensitive jointvetch, shortnose sturgeon, American alligator,
leatherback turtle, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, and the west Indian manatee. The
constnaction of the proposed borrow pit will not affect these federally listed species.
4
Jurisdictional Determination Morris and Mills Borrow Pit Site
Prepared by: Rummel. Klepper & Kahl, LLP

RVU I IIYC YYC 1 LJ~IIVLJ UC 1 CRIYI11~1/+111VI~1
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: (None)
Investigators: Pete Stafford ~ 7 - ~ $ Q ~ State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland A
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Swale
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Along western boundary of Morris Prop.
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Acer rubrum Tree FAC Ilex coriacea Shrub FACW
Maple,Red Holly,Bay-Gall
Acer rubrum Shrub FAC Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Maple,Red Cane,Giant
Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC Osmunda regalis Herb OBL
Greenbrier,Common Fem,Royal

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 6/6 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 3/3 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 14/6 = 2.33
Remarks:
FITUKULUGY
YES Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
NO Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
NO Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
NO No Recorded Data YES Water Marks
NO Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment Deposits
YES Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: _ $ (in•) YES Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Perna 1 of ~ t~~n~Cn....tm

RVU I IIVC YYC 1 l~NIVU UC 1 CR111111VH I IVItl
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Morris and Mills Project No: Date: 3-Apr-2007
ApplicanUOwner: S.T. Wooten County: (None)
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland A
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Augusta fine sandy loam
Map Symbol: Ag Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Endoaquults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0 - 12 10YR3/1 N/A N/A N/A Loamy sand
12 - 24 1 OYR4/2 10R5/4 Common Faint Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon YES High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor YES Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime YES Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions YES Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
Wetland sampling point is within a cut over.
Pang 7 of 7 ~na..r...~tm

RVU I IIrC YYC 1 LNIVU UC 1 CRIYIInIN 1 IVIr
(79tf7 cut wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland B
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Upland Depression
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) See Attached Map
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Acer rubrum Tree FAC Ilex coriacea Shrub FACW
Maple, Red Holly, Bay-Gall
Acer rubrum Shrub FAC Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Maple, Red Cane, Giant
Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub FACW Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
Blueberry,Highbush Gum,Sweet
Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
Greenbrier,Common

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 7/7 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 3/3 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 18/7 = 2.57
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs YES Inundated
Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data YES Water Marks
NO Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment Deposits
YES Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: = 1 (in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) YES Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Panes 1 of ~
UIn~Cn....tm

RVV I IIVC YYC 1 L.NIYU UC 1 CRIYIIIVNI IVIY
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland e
501L5
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Tarboro
Map Symbol: TaB Drainage Class: Typic Udipsamments Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Endoaquults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0 -3 A 2.5YR5/2 N/A N/A N/A Loam
3 - 12 B 10YR4/2 N/A N/A N/A Loamy sand
12 - 24 10YR6/6 N/A N/A N/A Sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon YES High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
Pane ~ of ~ tnto,c....,,tm

RVU I IIYC YYC 1 LHIVU UC 1 CRIYIIIgN I IVIY
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Upland Depression
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Acer rubrum Tree FAC Osmunda regalis Herb OBL
Maple, Red Fem, Royal
Pinus taeda Tree FAC Ilex coriacea Shrub FACW
Pine, Loblolly Holly, Bay-Gall
Andropogon virginicus Tree FAC-
Broom-Sedge

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 4/5 = 80.00% FAC Neutral: 2/2 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 12/5 = 2.40
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
YES Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
NO Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
NO Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches

NO No Recorded Data YES Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surtace Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
YES Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: = 8 (in•) NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Panes 1 of ~ tnte+a[..,,„tm

RVU I IIYC YYC 1 LMIVU UC 1 CRIYIIrYNI IVIq
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland C
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Tarboro
Map Symbol: TaB Drainage Class: Typic Udipsamments Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Endoaquults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0 - 4 A 2.5YR5/2 N/A N/A N/A Loam
4 - 16 10YR4/2 N/A N/A N/A Loamy sand
16 - 24 C 10YR6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon YES High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor YES Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chromes Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
(Remarks:
Panes ~ of ~ tnin~C.....,tm

RVU 1 IIVC YYG 1 LHIrU UC 1 CRIYIIIVN 1 IVIr
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Upland -Wetland A
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:j? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) See attached map
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 21
Dominant Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Quercus falcata Shrub FACU- Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC
Oak,Southern Red Grape,Muscadine
Quercus nigra Shrub FAC
Oak,Water

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 2/3 = 66.67% FAC Neutral: 0/1 = 0.00%
Numeric Index: 10/3 = 3.33
Remarks:
Limited vegetation -Upland is located within a cutover
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
Other NO Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment Deposits
NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) NO FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Upland
Panes 1 of 7 ~ni..ar......tm

RVU 1 IIYC YYC 1 LNIYU UC 1 CRMIIYM I IVIY
(~ytsi uut wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Upland -Wetland A
JVIL~7
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Tarboro
Map Symbol: Tab Drainage Class: Typic Udipsamments Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Endoaquults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0 - 4 10YR4/2 N/A N/A N/A Sand
4 - 8 10YR5/4 N/A N/A N/A Sand
$ - 24+ 2.5Y6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
NO Gleyed or Low Chromes Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
...ter,

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
,Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
for Wetland Band C -See attached map for location
Panes ~ of 7 ~n~e~c,,,,„tm

RVU 1 IIVC YYC 1 LNIYU UC 1 CKMIIVNI IVIV
9S7 cUE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
Applicant/Owner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
PIOt ID: Upland -Wetland B8C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) See attached map
vt~t I p- I wn (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Quercus falcata Tree FACU- Sassafras albidum Shrub FACU
Oak,Southern Red Sassafras
Pinus taeda Tree FAC Diospyros virginiana Shrub FAC
Pine,Loblolly Persimmon,Common

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 2/4 = 50.00% FAC Neutral: 0/2 = 0.00%
Numeric Index: 14 /4 = 3.50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
Other NO Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment Deposits
NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) NO FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Upland
Panes 1 of 7 IA/nlCnr,rtm

r[VU 1 IIYC YYC 1 L/i1VIJ VC 1 CRIYIIIYHI IVIV
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morris and Mills Project No: Morris Date: 3-Apr-2007
ApplicanUOwner: S.T. Wooten County: Craven
Investigators: Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Upland -Wetland B&C
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Tarboro
Map Symbol: TaB Drainage Class: Typic Udipsamments Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Endoaquults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0 - 2 10YR4/3 N/A N/A N/A Sandy loam
2 - 12 10YR6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sand
12 - 30 2.5Y6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
NO Gleyed or Low Chromes Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
--
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes No
for Wetland Band C -See attached map for location
Panes 7 of 7 tnm~c~..,,tm

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: Figure 1 Wetland A
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Craven County City: Vanceboro
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35 13 50° N, Long. 77 06 10° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Swift Creek (35.23 N by 77.11 W)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Swift Creek flows to the Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020202090060
® 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): Apri12007
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Plclk List "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 Pick List "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 watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 12.83 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
^ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section [II 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 IILF.

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:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands are hydrologically connected to Swift Creek.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the 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: Piek 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 1-2 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 TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the avid
West.
`Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
^ Concrete
^ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
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 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:12.83 acres
Wetland type. Explain:PFO.
Wetland quality. Explain: Medium base upon adjacent land usage.
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 Adjacencv Determination with Non-TNW
® Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/ban-ier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Plck List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick Liat.
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: dark organic soils.
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: Cutover 75%coverage.
^ 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 (12.83) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directs abuts? (Y/N~ Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/Nl Size (in acres)
Wetland A N 12.83
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 it 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:
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:
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 IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
® Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: 12.83 acres.
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:

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-RPWse 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 [I1.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: 12.83 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:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
4 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
[~ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
(~ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis 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).
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):
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
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: Figure 1 Wetland B
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Craven County City: Vanceboro
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35 13 50° N, Long. 77 06 10° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Swift Creek (35.23 N by 77.11 W)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Swift Creek flows to the Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020202090060
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): Apri12007
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are na "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 ao "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 watersz (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 ofjurisdictional waters
® Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.39 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: Determined as isolated wetlands during onsite review.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III 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.

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; it the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands are hydrologically connected to Swift Creek.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the 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. It 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 1-2 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 TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
' 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 a~p1vY
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: Pliek List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
fiA 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 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:0.39 acres
Wetland type. Explain:PFO/Isolated.
Wetland quality. Explain: Low due to size.
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:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW•
^ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
® Separated by berm barrier. Explain: Natural sandy soils isolate this wetland from any TNW.
(d) Proximity (Relationship, to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: No Flow.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 -100-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: dark organic soils.
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: 90%coverage.
^ 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: l
Approximately (0.39) 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)
Wetland B N 0.39
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 IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSlWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ 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:

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-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (fl).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlandsdirectly 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
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: 12.83 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.
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);to
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA ~Nemorandum 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: Isolated wetland.
^ 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: 039 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:Craven County Soil Survey.
^ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/I,ocal 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 Forrn 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: Figure 1 Wetland C
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Craven County City: Vanceboro
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35 13 50° N, Long. 77 06 10° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Swift Creek (35.23 N by 77.11 W)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Swift Creek flows to the Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020202090060
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): Apri12007
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 no "waters of the U.S."within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
^ Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.11 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: Determined as isolated wetlands during onsite review.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III 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).
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.
TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands are hydrologically connected to Swift Creek.
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 Rapsnoshave 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 ota 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.
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 Lint 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 I-2 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 TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
`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 applv)•
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Plek List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
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 determ
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
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:
fiA natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily tlows 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:
^ Fishlspawn 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:0.11 acres
Wetland type. Explain:PFO/Isolated.
Wetland quality. Explain: Low due to size.
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:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
® Separated by berm barrier. Explain: Natural sandy soils isolate this wetland from any TNW.
(d) Proximity_(Relationship, to TNW
Project wetlands are P1ck List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: No Flow.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the SO -100-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: dark organic soils.
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: 90%coverage.
^ 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. l 1) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size in acresl Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland C N 0.11
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 tact 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):
I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Cyr, 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:

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-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
[~ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an 1tPW:
^ 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 1ZPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 12.83 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 1tPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
BSee Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
[] Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Isolated wetland.
^ 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).
Q 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: 0.39 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:Craven County Soil Survey.
[~ 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:

Borrow
Sites

i ~, ~
1 inch equals 400 feet

oz- ~ so ~
F~,`~'~%~'"
` `~;~~~ Craven
Borrow
~'°~z ~''~ %" ~
,~., ~ County ~7 Sites
~
~
•,~~

•ff F'~~e~I
'
'
•
! Y.::
~~~,,.'i,.:.,
~
,
~
i r,,>,.
rs ; ,,
t s ,'f °f / ~ rA
r~1.. ~: r.r sf ~~
~~

~~
a
1 inch equals 400 feet

:~ - ~ ~ ~
,
~`r~- ~ ~ 11 a ~_ u -
Legend - ~~ ~~ '. ~--~.~. - - ,
r- _ ~ :~~ `r ''- ~ i ~ . ,1 ...----~~- ' 1 ,~~~rh ,1 ~ , ~- VANCEBORO ~~~(j
..,-.-J-rt 7 I ~~~ ~~ \
~~ _ _ Project Study Areal Borrow Area ~ a= I i ; ~ ~ ~,1\ ~ ~@m ~ wd., e
Delineated Wetlands ~~~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ " -- ~~ tl ~ ~ ~ ' ~~
._. _ _-- .._ it ~~~~'~ ; ~ Craven Borrow ~°
.~ _ Coun
'N
' .~ 11 4 ~~ ', ~~ ~~, - t
~.. ~' ~7 Sites
_. ~` _,~_ -- ~_^ --f'~'- ~4. ~ ~ ._,~_~~. ~ ."~ iti. jJ ~ti i ~~, rJ/ 2'S ,~ ~•. 43 ti
.~ ~. ~__ Paz. _~oa„~ --~ ~~- // ~ ~- ~~ ~ ~~ ~% ~ ~~ + ~~~ r-~--
.~R. .~,. " q ,
~; ~,.~u.. .J -ate- -' I;l 'y ~ ~l /j/ ~~/ ~ ~ 55
' ~_' ~- ~,z „~s. -~,- _. ~, `~ '~ {1 ~~ r- Crave ~ ~ z~
`V ~~ ~ f .t...~ „~. ~ 31~, , r. 5~ir ,~,:, -~~'-''' - .,tl! 1"~ I! ' ~ ~ rJ
,,t+, - ~ ~ (' ~
- up ..~~ ~ JV~ ~ '~` ! - ~ i f l ~ I~ `~ - t}~ ~ ! 0 J NEW B€RN `' ~~:,. I
.. F~. ~ f~. a~~ ,itt ~1 ~ 1
-~ ,at ..d4 ~ -..' .w .. _..
., a:. _ ;r, ~~ `- w _ if ~ ~ ~l k ~A i'1 1 r ~ ~' ~ t
_,
..
\\~.
_ "~, r ~~
~.. .,!Le. ..-. _. ^ _ ..lie. ..-?L,r.. ~~:1._ r.. \ ~ f )
` ~ •.' r
~.. J'"`~ .~u,~~ ~ 4- _ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ;,~ ,ti Project Study Area _~~\ ,,, off ~ `~`~ 4~1
,, .~
,_
~~ t
. ,... -
- ~ ._
.. _.. - ,JU.,~; emu. /~ >.~. - i~ t f
~ ~. ,
:~
-- ...
4 -- ~ l; ~a~i /1 1
.- _, _ -
v ~ (1'J.
,.... '~ N
' .>~. ~,~,. ."~-~~~~- ~~ << , % ~\~ Wetland B ~~~ ~~~! - -
_,_ ... _
.- „~ ~ .
au. ~ .~:~ ~`' Wetland A ~ ~,, •~ ~ - , '' __ ~~ `~ f ~~ . , f
ti ~:>< 11 + ~~ ~ !~~
,,
`, , ~
-~ ~
'~~~. r ,, ~~ ~,,
~.
.,rte t 1 / ` // ` _.. ~„ ~
~ .~.
~ r"
~` 43 ,~:~ ,u. ~ _~.. ° • ~ , l;~ .~ Wetland ~1 u
~~ .~ ._ ~~ 5 ~ C ,~r~ ~~.
~ . Ir," ~ r~ ~U.
.,~,- `'~ ~ ~~ 1~ {,t ~``.-. ~' ~ t
( - -_ _=.'_ _'"~ .K. ~- ~I:. - ~4` .s~. .~~- ~ ! ._.. ~ ~ !1 it i ~f ~ ~~` „z :'~
--
,•
~,
f •
~- ~ ~, ~,,_ _ '~,~~., .~+' ~_ ,~...: r--' ~i~ S.T. Wooten
f f QQ __ ~:~ _ _._ ~ ~ .,;~' V~ Borrow Site
;-
~' ~ ',~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~,~. .~:~ - ,~,If 11 ~~ ~~,~ ~ ~ ~ .~,,.. USGS Quadrangle Map
~~~1 I'i ~~ ~~'• ~~. i ~ ~-.'~ ...~. .~. ., f ~f . ~~ ~ ..,y~
+f ~ ~!' , 1 '~oT~ ~ ~ z. .~u~~.~ ,~`~~ _. _.s; ~ _.. ~ I ~ - ~f ~~ ~ ~q4y ~ } -- May 23rd, 20D7
~ e"'ti aa. ~- ,lU,- .. ,~., ' Y~~r~ 1 r". r ~' °rf ~ ~ 900 Ridgt'6 Id C7; r.
~i ~~ ~ r~ ~~f r `, ~~ - ~..- .... ~ wit..' '"".' ~' ~j ` "~ " ~ i .~~~ Suite 350
i ~ ~~F .,8,_ _ nd
f 'u`, ~ ..~u, f t i? ti ~
a ~ r'~ ~ ~ ~, j. ~ L~ i ~~ Raleigh, Nc '~ (cr hn~
~~~ i r.' ~ ~ ~~h. ~ ~.~ - ,tU ~ ,
' ~+~ ~ ti~ ~i .-~., / :.f~. .~!. -- "~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 f '~ "" r' 21609-3960
~ l
- ~ _ 1 ~ -~'. --. k ~ 1' ~ r ..,u;. ~ Rwnmel, Ph: 919-8789540
0' •500 1„000. 2,000 ,~ 3,000 4,000 f - --~. - ~ ~ -- _ ~~ %~~ ~` ,r y~ I ~,.
_ _ .~. ~.
. ~~,-
r , !,• Klepper r,~ 919-~Rn ~
Feet fi"~mch e uals 7,O,Q6'#eet_ _ ~ ~ ~t~`'1t ~ ~~ ~; i<,~r~i
- _
Source: USGS Quadrangle, Askin, NC