HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020408 Ver 2_Jurisdictional Determination_20150908Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Craig R. Wyant <craig.wyant @charter.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:38 PM
To: Hair, Sarah E SAW; Burdette, Jennifer a; Turlington, Chad; Tony Johnson Jr
Cc: Chris Scott; Charles Heatherly
Subject: Revised JD for Stream S -6 at VMC Rockingham Quarry
Attachments: Corps JD Letter S -6 Rev.pdf
IuM:RM
Please find attached a Revised Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for Stream Transect S -6 at the
Vulcan Materials Company Rockingham Quarry located in Richmond County, NC. The Study
Area for Transect S -6 is located at 34.9302 N and - 79.8215 W.
As you may recall, we conducted a site investigation and field review of this area with representatives
of the NCDENR Division of Water Resources on July 21, 2015. At the time, we mutually agreed
that this feature does not exhibit the field indicators of a Water of the U.S. and is therefore considered
to be an Ephemeral Non -RPW and therefore Not Jurisdictional.
We would like to request that the attached revised JD be included as a replacement to that which was
previously included in the original JD submitted to your office.
Could you please review the attached information. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
any questions or if there is any way I can be of assistance to you.
Craig
Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS
A Fine Line Design
Post Office Box 163
High Shoals, NC 28077
704 - 240 -0793
craig.wyant @chartennet
August 29, 2015
Ms. Sarah Elizabeth Hair
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
910- 251 -4633
Sarah.E.Hair@usace.army.mil
RE: Revisions to JD of Stream Transect S -6
Preliminary Determination of Wetlands and Waters
Vulcan Materials Company Rockingham Quarry
Richmond County, NC.
Ms. Hair:
Please find attached a Revised Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for Stream Transect S -6 at the
Vulcan Materials Company Rockingham Quarry located in Richmond County, NC. The primary wa-
tercourse in the regional vicinity of the Study Area is Hitchcock Creek (NC Stream Index 13- 39 -(10),
sub -basin YAD16). The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for this stream is 03040201. There are two un-
named tributaries to Hitchcock Creek within the vicinity of the Study Area. The site is mapped on the
Rockingham, NC (1956, photorevised 1982) quad sheet of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Study
Area for Transect S -6 is located at 34.9302 N and - 79.8215 W. The Study Areas for this revised JD
consist of approximately 424 linear feet that occurs on the north side of the main entrance road into the
quarry just before reaching the quarry office.
As you may recall, we conducted a site investigation and field review of this area with representa-
tives of the NCDENR Division of Water Resources on July 21, 2015. At the time, we mutually agreed
that this feature does not exhibit the field indicators of a Water of the U.S. and is therefore considered
to be an Ephemeral Non -RPW and therefore Not Jurisdictional.
We would like to request that the attached revised JD be included as a replacement to that which was
previously included in the original JD submitted to your office.
Could you please review the attached information. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
any questions or if there is any way I can be of assistance to you.
r r'`'t"ro / DESIGN • Dosi Offi- Lox 163 • High Shoals • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
Thank you very much for your assistance.
A �Dr5�
Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS
A Fine Line Design
P.O. Box 163
High Shoals NC 28077
704 - 240 -0793
craig.wyant@charter.net
cc: Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Senior Specialist
NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 -1650
919- 807 -6364
j ennifer.burdette &cdenr.gov
Tony Johnson
Environmental Engineer
Vulcan Materials Company
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 105
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office (704) 547 -7076
Cell (571) 422 -6401
JohnsonTo@VMCMAIL.com
r r'`'tjro / DESIGN • 140 Offi- Lox 163 • High Shoals • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
VMC Rockingham 2015
Vulcan Materials Company
Mideast Division NORTH
Source: US Geologic Survey, Rockingham, NC Quad
Scale: 11 " =2000' 1
Ephemeral Non -RPW S -6
USGS Project Location Map
M
rr
1p 7
Kill-
d
♦ 0 L
04'
4L
N* 9L JA i •
Lh eq•
4-c
-f
Site Aerial Photo - S-6
(2014 - Google Images)
VMC Rockingham Quarry
Richmond County, NC
e
NORTH
Scale: 1 1"=200'
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ#
Transect S -6 — Ephemeral Non -RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
AQP
1. Applicant's Name: Vulcan Materials Conmanv 2. Evaluator's Name: Craig R. Wvant RLA /SWS
3. Date of Evaluation: August 14. 2015 4. Time of Evaluation: AM
5. Name of Stream: UT Hitchcock Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 10 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Richmond
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From US 74 Bvnass South of Rockingham. take the
Cordova exit (Highwav 1117/1109) and turn North (left). Cross bridge and take first right turn into Vulcan Materials Conmanv
Rockingham Ouarrv. Follow entrance road to auarry office. Check in at office for specific site locations and permissions.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N34.93020. W79.82150
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): unknown
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain in past 24 hours. several inches rain in past week.
15. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunnv: 50 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES e 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 5 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
75 % Forested 15 % Cleared / Logged 5 % Other (Roads/Parking-)
21. Bankfull Width: 10' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) X Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 47 Comments:
d Evaluator's Signature "1 `� Date August 14.2015
This channel evaluation form to be illy as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 .
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Transect S -6 — Ephemeral Non -RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 47
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
N
ECOREGION
POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0
— 4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0
- 4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
a
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0—
5
0—
4
0—
2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0
- 5
NA
12
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0
- 4
0-5
5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0
— 5
0-5
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0
- 4
0-5
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0
— 4
0-5
5
16
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
F
(no riffles /ripples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0
- 4
NA
20
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0
— 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0 • common numerous
( types =max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
i Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 47
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
N
NC" DNN`Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Transect S -6
Date: August 14, 2015
Project/Site: VMC Rockingham
Latitude: 34.9302
Evaluator: Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
County: Richmond, NC
Longitude: - 79.8215
Total Points:
Stre Deterrnlnatlon (circle one)
Other Rockingham, NC
tr1amiserenntlrif?3t* 14.0
rf 2 99 or perennial if z 30'
phemeral termlttent Perennial
e.g. QuadNanw:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_ 8_5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
(\ 1�
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(2)
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
O1
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
(�
1
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
CC 0)
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(1)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
(0)
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
( 1)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
[ .5
( 1)
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
(1.5)
11. Second or greater order channel
plc;
= C;
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= _ 2.0
12. Presence of Baseflow
[ 1
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(0 .
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
(1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
�0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(No
= 0)
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 3.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in stream bed
3
2
( 1)
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
( 2)
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
C;
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
(0.5)
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; 0 B L
= 1.5 COther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
15'
Sketch:
10' )�
I
2'
2'
4„
-
Section looking upstream
'
(Not to Scale)
b�A
O
U
U
0
W
E
CC
N
b�A
4
O
O
4--1
U
N
H
0
W
h
O
O
7
cy
h
I Q�y
'AJ •
I
O
ct
7O �
ct� U
� z
� � o
� � 1
�I
W 1
e--1
0
N �
M
,� o Z
cd
cd
w � O
of
O
0
a
z
w
0
m
A�
v�
m
Ephemeral Non -RPW Transect S -6 Looking Downstream
Ephemeral Non -RPW Transect S -6 Looking Downstream
VMC Rockingham 2015
Vulcan Materials Company
Richmond County, NC
C �ir�e��ne / DESIGN • P.J Off�e B.. 163,
Stream Transect S -6
Ephemeral Non -RPW
Hi96 56..15, NC 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
ti���art,1
ice, �; � �l •'�(
f 1�
1
y.
hw
a�
r �
l �
s
ci
ct
cR� cd
U
N
• .< <4 W
E
cd
0
aA
0
0
U
H
0
03
W
U �
U �
� O
Ct
C�
N U
4-
�w
W)
0
N �
M
ci
Cd
cd
w � O
h
O
O
7
cy
7
O
0
0
cv
U
L
s
1
0
0
a
L
75
w
0
m
A�
v�
m
F_. U
U
cd
I:
- o
z
N
Aiklm
i
U �
N �
� O
0
� N N
v� w
U
U
Cd
cd
ct
H
Z N ct
U
o
w '_-q c
U � �
O �U
m
0
0
c�
0
ti
c
z
ai
e�
0
a
z
LL
LL
0
A
ry ;
Ephemeral Non -RPW Transect S -6 View of Test Pit
Ephemeral Non -RPW Transect S -6/7 View of 24" CMP at Downstream End.
VMC Rockingham 2015
Vulcan Materials Company Stream Transect S -6
Richmond County, NC Ephemeral Non -RPW
��irceoZ/me / DESIGN • Post Office Box 163, High shoals, NC 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section N of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): September 8, 2015
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: VMC Rockingham - Ephemeral Non -RPW Stream S -6
State: NC County /parish/borough: Richmond City: Rockmi ham
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.9302° 1, Long. 79.8215° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Long Creek (Branch) to Hitchcock Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Hitchcock Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Yadkin (HU# 03040201)
® 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: August 1, 2015
® Field Determination. Date(s): August 14, 2015
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
El 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 (ponds) acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Ephemeral Non -RPW stream.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section lH.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 IILA.1 and Section IILD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it
helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -
round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with
perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts
and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus
between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable
water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request
is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section
III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that
tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 10 acres
Drainage area: 10 acres
Average annual rainfall: 47 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationshin with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT flows to Hitchcock Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary CLracteristics (check all that anDlv):
Tributary is: Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: E.
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: Some erosion.
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: Weak run/rifle /pool complexes.
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0 -2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Ephemeral flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume: Flow does not persist following storm events.
Surface flow is: L)*rete. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 0. Explain findings: Depth of ditch has been dug below level of groundwater.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
®
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
®
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
® water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
® Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:OHWM is not present in all areas.
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: p Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water is not present.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Source of pollutants is not present.
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'lbid.
(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: Weak presence of wildlife use.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:.
Wetland quality. Explain:.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: Wetland is indirectly hydrologicaly connect to an RPW Ditch.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Separated by upland man -made chek dam.
(d) Proximitv (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick= floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil fihn on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): 100 foot width medium aged mixed forest.
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain: Medium aged mixed forest.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:Weedy areas along edges of open water provide beeding sites.
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Wildlife cover and breeding area.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directiv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directiv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: habitat, flood storage, pollutant
removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: 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: Perennial Stream exhibited strong flow, average ordinary high water widths of 15 -18 feet, moderate
presence of crayfish and macrobenthos, and substrate consisting of silt to small boulders.
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).
p Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
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) :"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdicdon Following Rapanos.
0 Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
'Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
�] Wetlands: acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:Ephemeral
stream does not exhibit more than a speculative influence on the physical, chemical or biological integrity of downstream
TNW.
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):
INon - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): 400 linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Rockingham, North Carolina, dated 1982.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Richmond County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 7, dated 1999.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Rockingham, North Carolina, dated 1995.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Google Images 2013.
or ® Other (Name & Date):On -site field photographs.
El 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: