The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20071925 Ver 1_Buffer Determination Request_20071018EcoScience Corporation - Raleigh, North Carolina 919-828-3433 07- 1 92 5 EcoScience LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ~at2: October 16, 2007 Wpb $~: 07-371 Att("l; MS. Amy Chapman WE ARE SENDING YOU: NC Division of Water Quality x Document Change Order 401 Oversight and Express Permits Data Plans Mail Service Center 1650 Copy of Letter Samples Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 x Maps Specifications Prints Other RE: Clifton Pond Subdi~~sion x Figures No. of Copies 1 Description Packa a of ma in and su ortin documentation to re uest 'urisdictional area verification THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: x For approval Approved as submitted For your use Approved as noted As requested Returned for corrections Resubmit Submit Return REMARKS: Amy please let me know if you need any other documentation. SENDER vll' ~ a'~~- CC: SIGNATURE: Elizabeth Scherrer RECIPIENT SIGNATURE: Copies for approval Copies for distribution Corrected prints s ~~ r L s zoo 1 0 ~, T i)Civf2 - WATER QUALITY YVETUI!~q~? .~~ID S'iQRtA1~!~ ~ ER BFtARCM ~,, z ,.~. a __ = 1101 Haynes Street St~itc 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Teiephone: 919.82&.3436 Fas: 919.~;2~~.-s:,s_, ~~,caL cience October 16, 2007 Mr. Eric Alsmeyer Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27615 0 7- 1 9 2 5 Re: Jurisdictional area delineations for Clifton Pond Subdivision o7-371 Dear Mr. Alsmeyer, Enclosed is a package of mapping, forms and figures describing stream and wetland delineations at the proposed Clifton Pond Subdivision in the Tar River Basin in Franklin County, NC. The project site is located just east of US 401 and south of M C Wilder Road (SR 1706), about 7 miles south of Louisburg. The project area is approximately 550 acres in size, including the approximately 35-acre Clifton Pond. We are requesting verification of the jurisdictional areas described in this package. A stream and wetlands delineation was performed during September 2007 within the subject property's boundaries to locate jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The assessment identified surface waters and wetlands. Up to 17 jurisdictional streams were located, including a portion of Crooked Creek and several unnamed tributaries to Crooked Creek and Clifton Pond. In addition, a portion of the on-site stream reaches including the upstream area of Crooked Creek are impounded by beavers and are not distinguishable from surrounding wetlands. In addition to a large (50-acre) wetland that includes these impoundments, several wetlands fringe other stream reaches and Clifton Pond. Clifton Pond itself comprises 35 acres of open waters and a portion of the large impounded wetland mentioned above. Wetland data forms, JD forms, and stream quality assessment forms are enclosed for your review. Please let me know if any additional information is needed, or if you would like to schedule a field visit to verify our findings. Sincerely, CI,P~R~~, s~~~~° Elizabeth Scherrer EcoScience Corporation Mr. Eric Alsmeyer October 16, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Attachments cc: Ms. Amy Chapman Buffer Coordinator N.C. Division of Water Quality 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit Mail Service Center 1650 Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Mr. Matthew Winslow Marcus Edwards Development, LLC 11635 Capital Blvd. Suite 340 Wake Forest, NC 27587 ~RONI DenMark Construction, Int. Dennis Cyrus, President I Date (MON) OCT 16 2007 9 : 62/ST. 9 ; 61 /IVo, 6810177690 P 2 THE DENMARK COMPANIES Marcus Edwards, LLC Dennis Cyrus 6z Mark E. Dowdy Member-Managers DenMark Harnes SC, Inc. Mazk E. Dowdy, President RE: Agent Authorization for property access with regard to the Clifton Pond project To Whom it May Concern: Our company Marcus Edwards Development LLC, has authorized EcoScience Corporation, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 1 Q1, Raleigh North Carolina as our agent for the i purposes of jurisdictional area delineations for the proposed project, Clifton Pond. The project is located in Franklin County, North Carolina. EcoScience Corporation is authorized to access the property for jurisdictional area delineations and agency review. Sincerely, ~.~~ Matthew Winslow Acquisitions and Development Manager Marcus Edwards Development LLC DATA FORM O T 1 9 2 5 TG11 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9/05/07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Riparian Wetland Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: TG11 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus nigra C FAC 9. 2. Carpinus caroliniana C FAC 10. 3. Acer rubrum C FAC 11. 4. Mockernut Hickory C UPL 12. 5. Betula nigra SC FACW 13. 6. Liquidambar styracifula SC FAC+ 14. 7. Vitis rotundifolia H FAC 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: > 12 (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): - Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS "~E": , Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wake-Wateree complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, very rocky Taxonomy (Subgroup): Lithic Udipsamments-Typic Dystroc hrepts Drainage Class: Excessively Drained-Well Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 8 A 2.5Y 6/3 Clay Loam 8 - 12 B 2.5Y 6/4 Sandy Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Yes X No Remarks: DATA FORM TG11 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9/05/07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Riparian Wetland Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: TG11 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Carpinus caroliniana C FAC 9. Euonymus americanus H FAC- 2. Ilex opaca SC FAC- 10. 3. Quercus nigra SC FAC 11. 4. Acer rubrum S FAC 12. 5. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 13. 6. Woodwardia areolata H OBL 14. 7. Smilax rotundifolia H FAC 15. 8. Parthenocissus quinquefolia H FAC 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: $ (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: s~ILs ;~~t ~ r a~ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wake-Wateree complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, very rocky Taxonomy (Subgroup): Lithic Udipsamments-Typic Dystroc hrepts Drainage Class: Excessively Drained-Well Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix,Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 4 A 10YF'. 4/3 Clay Loam 4 - 8 B1 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/6 Few, Faint Clay Loam 8 - 12+ B2 10 YR 6/2 10YR 5/6 Many, Prominent Sandy Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No X Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM TQ06 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9-10-07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Riparian Wetland Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: TQ06 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Pinus taeda C FAC 9. 2. Carpinus caroliniana C FAC 10. 3. Acer rubrum C FAC 11. 4. eetula nigra SC FACW 12. 5. Liriodendron tulipifera Sh FAC 13. 6. 14. ~• I5. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: > 12 (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS . S ~% ~~ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/Typic Fluvaquents Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained/Poorly Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 8 A 2.5Y 6/3 Loam 8 - 12+ B 2.5Y 6/4 Sandy Loam Hyuric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Yes X No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) TQOIi Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9-10-07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoSCience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Riparian Wetland Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: TQ06 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Carpinus caroliniana C FAC 9. Arundinaria gigantea S FACW 2. Liquidambar styraciflua C FAC 10. Ilex opaca SC FAC- 3. Quercus michauxii C FACW- 11. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 4. Acer rubrum C FAC 12. 5. Gordonia /asianthus SC FACW 13. 6. Boehmeria cylindrical H FACW+ 14. 7. Peltandra virginica H OBL 15. 8. Woodwardia areo/ata H OBL 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches X Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/Typic Fluvaquents Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained/Poorly Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 3 A 10YR 5/3 Clay Loam 3 - 10 B1 10YR 4/1 Clay Loam 10- 12+ 62 10YR 5/1 Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMiNATinN Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ,?: Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No X Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM WC21 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9/21/07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Swamp Forest Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: WC21 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Liriodendron tulipifera C FAC 9. 2. Pinus taeda C FAC 10. 3. Quercus a/ba C FACU 11. 4. Acer rubrum C FAC 12. 5. Ilex opaca SC FAC- 13. 6. Quercus veluntina SC UPL 14. 7. Vitis rotundiflora S FAC 15. 8. Rosa multiflora S UPL 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 33% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: > 12 (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: Snii.S Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquei;tic Dystrochrepts/Typic Fluvaquents Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained/Poorly Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: D~ Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 6+ A 2.5Y 6/4 Loam 6 - 12+ B 2.5Y 6/3 10YR 6/8 Many, Faint Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DF.TF,RMiIYATi(lN Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Yes X No Remarks: DATA FORM WC21 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9/21/07 Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes X No Transect ID: Swamp Forest Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: WC21 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Acer rubrum C FAC 9. Polygonum sagittatum H OBL 2. Liquidambar styracif/ua C FAC 10. 3. Magnolia virginiana Sh FACW+ 11. 4. Smilax rotundifolia S FAC 12. 5. Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 13. 6. Acer negundo S FACW 14. 7. Arundinaria gigantean S FACW 15. 8. Woodwardia areolata H OBL 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 8 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks X Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches X Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/Typic Fluvaquents Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained/Poorly Drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0 - 8+ A 10YF; 5/2 10YR 5/8 Many, Prominent Sandy Loam 8 - 12+ B 10YR 6/1 10YR 5/8 Many, Prominent Sandy Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No X Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) XA-XB rolectt~ite: Clifton Pond Subdivision Date: 9/13/07 pplicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC County: Franklin ivestigator: J. Cooper - EcoScience State: NC ~ Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Community ID: Upland (Mixed Pine Forest) the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? X Yes No Transect ID: XA-XB lines the area a potential problem area? Yes X No Plot ID: Up from XB04 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies P Stratum Indicator 1. Cornus florida S FACU 9. 2. Carya glabra T/S FACU 10. 3. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 11. 4. Juniperus virginiana T/S FACU- 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. ~' _ 15. g' 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 25% Remarks: HYDROLOGY - Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other X No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): - Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: many crayfish chimneys ouserved within wetland SOIL \~~~ ... ~:. j .. Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Drainage Class: Well drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-3 A 10YR 4/3 -- -- Sandy loam 3-12+ E 10 YR 6/3 -- -- Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Yes X No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Clifton Pond Subdivision Applicant/Owner: Marcus Edwards Development LLC Investigator: J. Cooper - EcoScience Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? X Yes No Is the area a potential problem area? Yes X No VEGETATION Date: 9/13/07 County: Franklin State: NC Community ID: Wetland (BLH) Transect ID: XA-XB lines Plot ID: XB04 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species 1. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 9. 2. Quercus nigra S FAC 10. 3. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 11. 4. Rubus betulifolius S FAC 12. 5 S . aururus cernuus H OBL 13. 6. 14. 7 . 15. 8 ' 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY - Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) _ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs _ Other X No Recorded Data Available Fief Observations: Depth of Surface Water: -- (in,) Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) XA-XB Stratum Indicator Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches X Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test X Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: many crayfish chimneys observed within wetland SOILS ~t `; %~'~ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wedowee Sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Drainage Class: Well drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes X No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-2 A 10YR 4/3 -- -- Sandy loam 2-6 Bw1 10 YR 6/2 7.5 YR 6/8 Common, prominent Loam 6-12+ Bw2 10 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 6/8 Common, prominent Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETFRM~NATi(lN ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No I Remarks: USAGE AID#_ DWQ# Site #TAK48 ___ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~~-,° ~ ~~ i~~r~ ~~ k, Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Appliyant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/17/07 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 7. Approximate drainage area: 60 ac 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 11. Site coordinates (if known): 36.0054, 78.3579 4. Time of evaluati 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 8. Stream order: 151 10. County: Franklin 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of US 421 west of Clifton Pond Road 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps below ava ppt 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 82 °F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section IO Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: %2 acre 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: 10% Residential 50% Forested 22. Bankfull width: 1 ' - 5' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO Commercial % Industrial 20% Agricultural 20% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):- Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _ ~, Steep (> 10%) 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): 49 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. ~P~r ~ 3. STREAI~I QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE 1 Presence of flow / persistcnt pools in stream (no flow or saturation° Ostron flow = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - ~ 0 - 5 0 ~ Evidence of past'human alteration (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration.= ma~:_ Dints 0 - 6 0 -5 0 - 5 4 3 Riparian zone (no buffer = 0; Conti uous; wide buffer = max Dints) '0- 6 0 - 4 0 - 5 4 Evidence of nutrienf or chemical discharges (extensive dischar es - 0; no dischar es ='max Dints} 0 - 5 0 - ~ 0 - 4 4 ~-1 ~ Groundwater discharge U no discharge ° 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. =max. Dints) 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 0 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain ~., no flood lain = 0; .extensive flood lain = max " Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 x ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0. dee ]v entrenched = 0; fie uent floodin = max Dints) 0-5 0-4 0-2 0 ~ Presence of adjacent wetlands no wetlands - 0; (ar e adjacent wetlands =.max Dints) 0- 6 0- 4 0 2 0 9 Channel sinuosity (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander -max Dints) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3 10 Sediment input (extensive de position= 0; little or no sediment = max Dints ~ 0 - 5 0 - 4 Q - 4 3 1 1 Size & diversity o€channel bed substrate ('ne, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = max Dints) NA* ~ 0- 4 0- 5 3 1~ Evidence of channelincision or widening dee 1 ~ incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max Dints) Q ` 5 0 - 4 0 - 5~ 3 a 1~ Presence of major bankfailures (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable: banks = max Dints) 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 Q' 14 Root depth and density on banks E~ (no visible mots = 0; dense roots throughout ° max. Dints 0 -' 0 - 4 0 - 5 4 ~ 15 1(mpact by agriculhrre, livestock, or•'timber production (substantial im act.=0; no evidence =max. Dints) 0 - 5 0'- 4 0 - 5 16 Presence. of riffle-pooUr•ipple-pool complexes E-y ao riffles/ri les or Dols = 0; well-develo ed = max Dints).. 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 Q 19 Habitat complexity (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent; varied habitats -max Dints 0- 6 0'- 6 0- 6 2 ~ 18 Canopy coverage over streambed ~ no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max Dints) 0-5 0-5 0-5 5 l9 Substrate embeddedness * dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure ° max) N.'1 0- 4 0- 4 2 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) ~,, no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max Dints 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 u 21 Presence of amphibians O (no evidence = 0; corrunon, numerous es = max Dints) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0 ~ 22 Presence of fish ; ~ (no evidence = 0; commom, numerous es = max Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 2' Evidence of wildlife use (no evidence = O; abundant'evidence = max Dints) 0-6 0-5 0-5 Total Points Possible 100 100 1.00 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) q9 ..,w.. ..uu. u~.w~~auw ui t, uVl CIJJCJJGLL 111 GUdSI'dl SUCam S. USACE AID# DWQ# Site # TAP04 h STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~~° '~~- ~~~~t ~ ~« 4... Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/18/07 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 4. Time of evaluation: 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 7. Approximate drainage area: 30 ac 8. Stream order: 1st 9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 ft 10. County: Franklin 11. Site coordinates (if known): 36.0011, 78.3441 12. Subdivision name (if any 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): west of Cliftons Pond east of US 401 south of Crooked Creek 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps below av~ ppt. 16. Site conditions at time of visit: 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: OS% Residential 80% Forested 22. Bankfull width: 2' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural 15% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1' - 2' Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 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): 56 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream ~ (no flow or saturation ='0; strong flow = max points 0 - 5 0- ~ 0- S 2 ~ Evidence of past human alteration (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max ~oints) 0 6 0- S 0-S 2 ., Riparian zone (no buffer = 0; Conti uaus, widebuffer~=max Dints 0- 6 0- 4 0- S 4 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges (extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es=max. ~ints)- 0 - S 0- 4 -0 - 4 3 ~.,a Groundwater discharge ~ ~ (no dischar e = 0; s grin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max Dints) 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain (no flood Main = 0; extensive flood lain = max Dints) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2 ,x ~ Entrenchment/floodplain access ~ ~ ~' dee ly entrenched = 0; fre went floodin ' _ max: Dints) _ 0 S ° 0 - 4 0 2 4 Presence of adjacent wetlands' (no wetlands = 0; lame adjacent wetlands = max-- Dints 0- 6 0 4 0- 2 3 9 Channel sinuosity (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max Dints) 0- S 0- 4 0- 3 2 10 Sediment input 0 S 0 ~} 0 4 2 (extensive de position= 0; li' `le or no sediment= max Dints Size & diversity of channel bedsubstrate ~ 1 I (fine, homo enous = 0; lame, diverse.. sizes = max Dints) NA* 0-4 0 S 1 1 ~ Evidence of channel incision or widening ~ dee 1 ~ incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max Dints ~ 0- S 0 - 4 0 - 5 3 .~"., 1~ Presence of major bank failures ~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks ° max Dints) 0 - S 0 - 5 0 - S S p Q 14 Root depth and density on banks. 0 - 0- 4 0 5 ~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max ointg) ' - 3 1S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production (substantial im act =0; no evidence = max Dints) 0-S 0 4 0-S 2 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes ` e-~ no riff]es/ri > >les or pools - 0; yvell-develo ed = max Dints) 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 1 Q ` 17 Habitat complexity 0_ 6 0- 6 0- 6 2 ~ tittle or no habitat = 0; fre uent; varied habitats = max Dints ~ 18 Canopy coverage overstreambed 0 S 0 S 0 5 ~ (no shading vegetation - 0; continuous cano = max oints)~ - - 4 1 ~ Substrate embeddedness Nq* 0- 4 0- 4 dee I ~ embedded = 0; loosestructure ° max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) ~„~ no evidence = 0• common, numerous es ='max Dints 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 21 Presence of amphibians O (no cvidenco = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints). 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0 (no evidence= 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- S 0 S (no evidence= 0; abundant evidence = max Dints) - 4 Total Points Possible 100 ~ 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enteron first page) 56 l hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. ', USACE AID# DWQ # Site # TAY08 ' I STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '~~ ~~~~ .~.. ~. Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/21/07 4. Time of evaluation: 11 am 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 7. Approximate drainage area: 80 ac 8. Stream order: 3`d 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 10. County: Franklin 11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.9956, 78.3562 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of US 401, west of Clifton Pond Road, south of Cliftons Pond 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps, below aye ppt. 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly Cloudy 82 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 20 acres 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: 10% Residential 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO Commercial % Industrial 15% Agricultural 60% Forested 22. Bankfull width: 3' - 5' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 15% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 0.5' - 1' Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to I 0%) Steep (> 10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frenuent 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): 71 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. . sl ~ ~;~' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE . SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strongflow =inax oints) , p - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3 ~ Evidence of pest human alteration (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5 5 Riparian zone (no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer =max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges (extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es =max onts 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 4 ,~ ~ Groundwater discharge 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 4 4 ~ ~~ - (no dischar~~ - 0; s rin s see s wetlands etc. -max oints > , - ~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 2 4 (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain=`max oints) ,'1,' ~ Entrenchrnent /floodplain access py (dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding = max oints) 0-5 0-4 0-,2 4 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands j '0 - 6 ~0 - 4 ~ 0 -'2 4 (no wetlands = 0; large ad acent wetlands = max oints ~ Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3 (extensive channelization 0; natural meander = max: oints) 10 Sediment input 0- ~ 0- 4 0- 4 3 (extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 11 (fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes= max oints NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 I Evidence of channel incision or widening ~ 12 (dee Iv incised = 0; stablebed & banks = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3 ~, I a Presence of major bank failures. 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks ° max oints ~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3 ~ (no visible roots = O; dense roots throughout = max oints v' 1~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production (substantial im act =0; no evidence ° max Dints) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-.pool complexes ~ (no riffles/ri > >les or Dols = 0; well-develo ed = max oigts) 0 3 0 5 0 6 2 Q I ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 2 ~ (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max Dints) ^~ 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4 ~ (no shadin vegetation= 0; continuous<cano ~= max Dints) 19 Substrate embeddedness N~1* 0- 4 0- 4 2 (dee 1 ~ embedded - 0; loose structure =max):.,... ?0 Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4) 0 - 4- 0 S 0 5 0 no evidence = 0; common.. numerous. es = max Dints - - 21 Presence of amphibians. 0-4 0-4 0-4 1 O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) C 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max Dints) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Dints) Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on t~rstpage) 7] * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. USACE AID# DWQ # Site # TBE17 ' ' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `~`~ ~~~~i ~41i:.. Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/21/07 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 7. Approximate drainage area: 705 ac 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.9967, 78.3501 4. Time of evaluation: 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 8. Stream order: 2"d 10. County: Franklin 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): west of Cliftons Pond, east of US 401 south of Cliftons Pond 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps, below ava ppt 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, 82 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 5 ac 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: 20% Residential 60% Forested 22. Barilcfull width: 2' - ~' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural 20% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1' Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%) 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): 60 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. fJ,~, STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 -5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2 (no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow =max oints) Evidence of past human altera`~tion 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2 (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = tnax points) ~ Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer =max oints} 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0 -5 0 - 4 0- 4 2 (extensive discharges = O;no dischar es =max oints~ ,,,,~ 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4 ~ no disc,har~e = 0; s ~rinUs, see s, wetlands, etc. _ max oints) ,..., ~ Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0 - 4 0 - 2 3 ~, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain =max oints) , ,x' ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access ~ 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3 A"' dee I ~ entrenched = 0; f~e uent floodin ~ max oints) _, 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2- 4 (no wetlands = 0; lame ad acent wetlands °max oinfs) ~ Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3 (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander =max oints) 10 Sediment input 0 -`5 0 r4 0 -~ 4 3 (extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = Knax oints 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2 (fine, homo enous = 0; lame, diverse sizesr= max'oints) 1 ~ Evidence of channel incision or widening 0- 5 0- 4 0- 5 3 ~+ (dee 1 ~ incised = O; stable' bed &banks =max. oints ~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 4 ~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks -max oints ~ 14 Root-depth and.density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3 F, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout =max oints l~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-S 2 (substantial im act =0; no evidence = max. oints) 16 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2 ~ (no riffles/ri les or pools = 0, well-develo ed =max.: pints) - d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3 ~ (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats =max pints) ~ l 8 Canopy coverage overstreamlaed 0-5 0-5 0 5 4 x (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano =max pints) l9 Substrate embeddedness NAB` 0-4 0 - 4 2 (dee 1 embedded° O; loose structure - max)_ ~ _0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es =max pints ~ i Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2 O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es =max pints) 0 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0 ~--~ no evidence = O;,common, numerous t es =max pints) ~' Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5 4 no evidence = 0; abundant evidence °max pints) Total Points Possible 100 L00 ~ i00 TOTAL SCORE (also entzr on first page} 60 * Tllese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. USACE AID# ___ __ _ _ DWQ# ... __........... Site #TE20 (indicate on attached map) ' ' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ `~``~ ~,~~i ~~ .. Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/04/07 5. Name of stream: Crooked Creek 7. Approximate drainage area: 7.5 miZ 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 11. Site coordinates (if known): 36.0011, 78.3441 4. Time of evaluation 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 8. Stream order: 3`d 10. County: Franklin 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of Clifton Pond. Road, east of second dam 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions:_ Above averaae temps below av~ ppt 16. Site conditions at time of visit:_ Sunnv, 95 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: Crooked Creek = 47 ponds, 48.2 acres total Clifton Pond = 21 ponds 27 3 acres total 98% of tributaries are impounded 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: 10% Residential % Commercial % Industrial 25% Agricultural 45% Forested 20% Cleared /Logged % Other 22. Bankfull width: 4' - 12' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 - 4' Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 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): 62 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the Tinited States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Co~rnnent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. ,r~~ i (I _ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE ~ Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream (no Clow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints) 0 v 5 0 -- 4 p - 5 4 ~ Evidence of past human alteration (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration =max. oints) 0 - 6 0 - 5 p - 5 3 Riparian zone ~ (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer-= max oints 0 - 6 0 - ~ 0 -5 3 ~ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges (extensive discharges =;,0; no dischar es = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 2 5 Groundwater discharge ~ no discharge = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints) 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 ~ ~ Presence of adjacent floodplain ~., (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints) 0 - 4 0 - 4_ 0 - 2 2 ~ ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access Q"' (dee I ~ entrenched = 0; fre vent floodin = max oints); 0 - 5' 0 - 4' 0 - 2 1 ~ Presence of adjacentwetlands (uo wetlands = 0; Iaroe a~ ~acerit wetlands = max oints)_ 0 - 6 0 - 4~ 0 - 2 ~ Channelsinuosity extensive channelization = 0; natural~meander = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 3 2 10 Sedimentnput ~ extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - ~} 0 _ ~} 2 l ~ Size Sz diversity of channel bed substrate (fine, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes =~max Dints) * NA 0 - 4 p - 5 3 l~ Evidence of channel. incision or widening ~ dee lv incised = 0; stable. bed & banks = rnax Dints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2 ~ 13 Presence of major bank failures ~ ~~ q (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks =max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - $ 2 Q, 14 Root depth and density on banks E~ no visible roots = 0; dense roots hrou hout = max Dints '' ~ -' '0 - 4 0 - 5 ~ 1~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production (substantial im act =0;no evidence = max Dints) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4 16 presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes E„~ (no riffles/ri , ~Ies or Dols = 0; well-develo ed = max Dints) 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 4 ~ 17 Habitat complexity " ~ (little or no habitat = Q; fre tent, varied habitats max Dints) 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 4 ~ 18 Canopy coverage over streambed x (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous'cano v = max Dints) 0 - 5 0- 5 0 - 5 4 T9 Substrate embeddedness (dee 1 embedded - 0; loose structure = max) NA* 0-4 0-4 ~ 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see. page 4) ~ (no evidence = 0; conm~on, numerous es~= max Dints 0-4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2 `7 21 Presence of amphibians a (no evidence = 0; .common, numerous es = max Dints 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2 O 22 Presence offish ` (no evidence - 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 2 23 Evidence of wildlife use (no evidence.=-0; abundant evidence = max Dints) 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5 4 Total Points Possible 10.0 100 t00 TOTAL SCORE (also ester on first gage) 62 ..w., ~.uwu~wuauw aic uVl tIJJGSSGU l^ WASLdl $Tream$. USACE AID# DWQ # Site #TF86=TL02 __ , ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ •' ~ = • fit, Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/6/07 4. Time of evaluation: 10 am 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 7. Approximate drainage area: 70 ac 8. Stream order: 151 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 10. County: Franklin 11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.9988. 78.3430 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of Clifton Pond Road, south of Cliftons Pond 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision I5. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps, below ava ppt. 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunnv. 90 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial 22. Bankfull width: 2' - 3' 90% Forested Industrial % Agricultural 10% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 - 2' Gentle (2 to 4%) 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%) 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): 68 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~~i # CHARACTERISTICS ~ ECOREGION POINT RANGE ~ SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0 -_5 0 - 4 0 5 3 2 Evidence of past human alteratio^ (extensive alteration = 0; rloa(teration = max amts . 0 -6 0 - 5 0- 5 5 3 Riparian zone.. 0- 6 0 - 4 0- 5 4 (no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints) _ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges (extensive discharges = O; no dischar es= max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 4 ,..a ~ Groundwater discharge V no dischar<~e = 0; s rin s. see s, wetlands,. etc. = max oints) p_; 0- 4 0- 4 4 6 Presence of a..ljacent floodplain (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max Dints 0- 4 0- 4 0--2 I ~' ~ Entrenchment /~~floodplain access p.~ (dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max Dints) 0-5 0-4 0-2 2 ~ Presence of adjacent wetlands (no wetlands = 0; large ad'acent wetlands = max Dints) 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 -2` 2 9 Channel sinuosity ' ' (extensive channelization = 0; naturaLtneauder = max Dints) -0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 3 3 10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4 extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max Dints) Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 11 fine, homo enous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = max Dints) NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1 1~ Evidence of channel incision or widening ~ (dee 1 ~ incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max Dints p-~ 0 - 4 0 -5 4 a I ~ Presence of major bank failures ,~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max Dints 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 4 ~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 3 ~ no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout-= max. Dints - 0-4 0-5 4 ~ I S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production - ~ substantial im act ~O;no evidence =max Qints) 0 5 Q - 4 0 - S 3 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes ~ (no riffles/ri ~ les or Dols = 0; well-develo ed = max Dints) 0-3 0-5 0-6 2 d I ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 3 ~ (little or no habitat = 0; Cre uent, varied habitats -max Dints) ~ 18 Canopy coverageover streambed 0-S 0-5 0 5 ~ (no shading vegetation = 0; continuouscano = max Dints) - 4 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 4 0 4 (dee ly embedded = 0; loose structure= max) .,p Presence of stream invertebrates (see'page 4) ~„~ - no evidence = 0; common; numerous es ° max Dints 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - S 0 `7 ~, `1 Presence of amphibians 0'- 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) ""~ 22 Presence of fish 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 5 0 5 (no evidence = 0; abundantevidence = max Dints) - - 5 Total Points Possible l0U 100 100 TOTAL. SCORE (also enter on first page) 68 t nese cnaractenstres are not assessed m coastal streams. USACE AID# DWQ# Site #TZ06 ~, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name:_ Marcus Edwards Development LLC 3. Date of evaluation: 9/11/07 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 7. Approximate drainage area: 8 ac 9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 11. Site coordinates (if known): 36.0078, 78.3444 ~4 lr 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 4. Time of evaluation: 3 pm 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 8. Stream order: 151 10. County: Franklin 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of Clifton Pond Road north of Cliftons Pond 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions:_ Above averaee temps below ava pot. 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, 100 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soi] Survey? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: 5% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural 85% Forested 10% Cleared /Logged % Other 22. Bankfull width: 2' - 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 _2' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 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): 64 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ ~ =f' # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max Dints) 0-5 0-4 0-~ 1 ~ Evidence of past human alteration 0 6 '0 - 5 0 5~ 4 (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maa Dints 3 Riparian zone 0- 6 ~0 - 4 0- 5 4 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer -.max Dints): ~ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ~ (extensive discharges - O; no dischaz es =-max oznts 0 - 5 0 - ~ 0 -4 4 ,..~ Groundwater discharge ~ ~ (no discharge = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands,. etc. = max Dints) 0 _; 0- 4 0- 4 2 ~ G Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 -0,-4 0-2 1 (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max Dints) x ~ Entrenchment/ floodplain access A" dee I entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max aints) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2 ~ Presence of adjacent wetlands ~ 0 6 0- 4 0- 2 2 no wetlands = 0; lame ad acent wetlands = max Dints) q Channel sinuosity 0_~ 0- 4 0- 3 2 (extensive charu~elization = 0; natural meander = max Dints) 10 Sediment input 0- 5 0~ 0- 4 4 extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment= max ~ Dints Size & diversity of channel bed substrate ~ 11 (fine, homo enous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = max Dints} * NA 0 - 4 ~-0 - 5 3 1 ~ Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - S 3 ~ (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed ~>~~nks ° max Dints) ,E"'.,, 1 ~ Presence of major bank taihrros 0- 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 4 ,,~~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion,. stablebanks = max Dints) ~ ~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 4 F ,, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max Dints) 1? Impact by agriculture, livestock; pr timber production 0 5 4 0 (substantial im act -0; no evidence = max Dints) - 0- -5 4 16 Presence of riffle-pc ~Vr•ipple-pool complexes 0- 3 0 5 0- 6 4 ~ no riffles;"ri ales or Dols = 0; well-develo ed= max Dints) ~ 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2 ~ (little or no habitat = 0; fre rient, varied`habitats = max Dints) ~ ~ }8 Canopy coverage over strear-ibed 0-5 0-5 0-5 5 ~ (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous eano = max Dints 1 ~ Substrate embeddedness' NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 2 dee ly embedded = 0; loose structure = max) ~0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 5 0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints - u 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0 O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) Q 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Dints) Total Points Possible 1:00 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 64 * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. USACE AID# _ DWQ# Site #ZK 10 (indicate on attached map) ~, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~, ; Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name:- Marcus Edwards Development LLC 2. Evaluator's name: EcoScience/M. Thomas 3. Date of evaluation: 9/14/07 4. Time of evaluation: 3 pm 5. Name of stream: UT to Crooked Creek 6. River basin: Tar-Pamilco 7. Approximate drainage area: 80 ac 8. Stream order: 2nd 9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 ft 10. County: Franklin 11. Site coordinates (if known): 36.0074, 78.3438 12. Subdivision name (if any): 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): east of Clifton Pond Road north of brid e over Crooked Creek 14. Proposed channel work (if any): Residential Subdivision 15. Recent weather conditions: Above average temps below ave ppt. 16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 95 °F 17. 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) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: '/2 acre 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: OS% Residential 70% Forested 22. Barilcfull width: 4' - 8' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Si Commercial % Industrial 15% Cleared /Logged % Other 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):- Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%~ Frequent meander Very sinuous irvey? YES NO 10% Agricultura, 2-4' I Steep (> 10%) 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): 53 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 requiren.ent. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Connnent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ ~' ~ # CHARACTERISTICS ECORECION POIN T RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of Flow /persistent pools in stream ~ no~flow or saturation = 0; stron T flow = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2 ~ Evidence of past human alteration 0 6 0 -5 '0 S 5 e~€tensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max Dints - ~ Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4 (no buffer - 0; contiguous, wide buffer =max. oints)_ ~ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ~ - (extensive discharges =Q; no dischar es = max Dints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 4 2 ;..,a ~ Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 1 ~ no discharge = 0; s rings, see s, wetlands, etc. -max Dints) ~, ~ Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4` 0-4 0-2 0 (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max Dints) `,.T'., ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 5 0- 4 0- 2 0 ~' (dee 1 ~ entrenched = O; fre went floodin =tnax Dints). ~ Presence of adjacent wetlands j 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 (no wetlands = 0; lar e ad acent wetlands. = max Dints). 9 Channel sinuosity 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 3 4 (extensive channelization - 0 natural meander = max Dints) 10 Sediment input 0-> 0-4 0-4 3 (extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max Dints) Size Sz diversity of channel bed substrate 11 (fine, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = max Dints), NA* 0 - 4 ~ 0 - 5 3 l~ Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 4 ~ U - 5 1 ~+ (dee lv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max Dints a 13 Presence of major bank failures -0-5 0-5 0-S' 2 ~,,,~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max Dints) p QJ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0- i 0-4 0-5 3 ~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throutrhout -max Dints).. . ~ l ~ Lnpact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0 - 5 0- 4 0 - 5 4 (substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oinCs) 1~ Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 ~ (no riffles/rirples or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max Dints) ~ 1 ~ Habitatcomplexity 0 - 6 0 - 6 0 - 6 4 little or no habitat = 0; fre rent, varied habitats ° max Dints) Q 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 ~'0-5 0-5 4 x (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano" = max Dints) 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 2 (dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 -0-5 0-5 2 ~,,; no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints `,; ,, ~l Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0 O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) C 22 Presence of fish 0 - 4 ' 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 _ no evidence= 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) ~ ~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5 4 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Dints) Total Points Possible ~ 100 100 100- - TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) ' S3 * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. Borth Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/11/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0058 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3518 Total Points: 21.25 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TAD03) if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. a Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ w~airniauc 4rt6.ncJ alc IIVI IOIGV, Jcc UIJI,.UJJIVIW III IIItIIIUaI B. Hydroloav (Subtotal = 4 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.75 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 b. Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; ncnla cV auV L I IVI.UJ VII LIIC f.JICJCIIGC VI uNlanu Tanis, Fern ~y rocuses on the presence or aquauc or weuand plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 I Date: 09/11/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0058 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3518 Total Points: 42.25 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TAF33) if> 19 or perennial if? 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbur /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotar= 23) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 10 . Headcuts ~ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11 . Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12 . Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ^ Yes = 3 a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual R I-Ivrlrnlnnv /Ci ihtntal = Q '~ ~- 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 (~ Rinlnnv tCi ihtntal = 1 n 7.ri 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphytor, ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; "Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence or upiana pian[s, i~ern ~y wcuses un uiC Nicocu~c vi ayuau~, vi vvcuaiiu N~a~~~~. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/14/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0017 ~ Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3544 ~ Total Points: 5.5 Other: TAJ26 Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin e. g. Quad Name: Louisburg & West if? 19 orperennial if? 30 Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substratF sorting ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ ° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 2 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel - dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ^ C. Biologv (Subtotal = 2.5 ) 20b . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ^; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; "Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/14/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0030 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3576 Total Points: 6.5 Other: TAJ48 Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin e. g. Quad Name: Louisburg & West if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 Bun n A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 4) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ ° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 0 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ® 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ^ C. Biology (Subtotal = 2.5 ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW Other = 0 ^ = 0.75 ^; OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; "Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item ~y tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/17/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0048 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3581 Total Points: 27.25 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TAK48) if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 10. Headcuts ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ " Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual E. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ 2.5 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ^ 1 ® 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.75 ) -- - -- 20 .Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 2~. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; "Items 20 and 21 tocus on the presence of upland plants, item za tocuses on the presence of aquauc or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/17/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0060 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3605 Total Points: 24.25 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TAL03) if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30 e. g. G?uadName: Louisburg/W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a . Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ mau-n PUG u1t411cJ aIG I Wl IC1lGU, JCC 41Jl.U JJNIIJ III IIIgIIUCII B. Hydroloav (Subtotal = 3.5 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ^ 1 ® 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.7<< ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW Other = 0 ^ = 0.75 ®; OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; nerns cu ana ~ i rocus on [ne presence or upiana plants, item za rocuses on [ne presence of aquaUC or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/17/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0036 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3642 Total Points: 28 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TAP04=TA011) if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr /W. Bunn A. 1 a. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13) Continuous bed and bank Absent ^ 0 Weak ^ 1 Moderate ® 2 Strong ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. 9a. Recent alluvial deposits Natural levees ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ® 1 1 ® ^ 2 2 ^ ^ 3 3 10. Headcuts ® p ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1,5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. a M~n_m~rlo rli+rhac oro .,.,~ ..,~.,.~...,.,..~~ ..........:..-,.:_ .v-_.._i No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 8 5 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0,5 ^ p 1?. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.5 1 20 21 b . Fibrous roots in channel . Rooted plants in channel ^ ^ 3 3 ® ® 2 2 ^ ^ 1 1 ^ ^ 0 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ ~ ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed iio ~n ...,a ~~ a,. .~... FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ^; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ®; SAV = 2.0 ^; - - -_-- - ~ "--- -~~ •••- r'..--".... "• "~+•"~~~ r+~win.a, na.ni ~o wl.uJCD Vu 111C ~.IICJCIII.C UI ayuauc or weuana plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/18/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0032 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3631 Total Points: 5.5 Stream is at /east intermittent County: Franklin Other: TAT01 if>_ 79 or perennial if>_ 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUrg/VV. Bunn A. 1 a. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 3) Continuous bed and bank Absent ^ p Weak ® 1 Moderate ^ 2 Strong ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6 Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. 9a. Recent alluvial deposits Natural levees ® ® 0 p ^ ^ 1 1 ^ ^ 2 2 ^ ^ 3 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. a. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ ,•~..~~ ~~~4,.,, ..~w~~w aic n~~ iawu, acc uixuoswns ni ft~anU81 B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 2 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0,5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 1 ~S. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes - 1 .5 ~l C. Biology (Subtotal = 0.5 ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ® 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ® 0 22. Crayfish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed iro..,~ ~n .,.,a ~~ s,. .~,. FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ^; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; - -- - _..- r.___..__ ,.. _r.v..w r,,....,,, ,.,.~~~ ~„ ~~..uow ~n uic Niwcn~c vi ayuauc ur wetiana pian[s. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/21/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 35.9956 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3562 Total Points: 44.75 Other: UT toCrooked Ck (TAY08) Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin if>_ 79 or erennial if>_ 30 e.g. quad Name: LOUISbUrg/V\/. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 22.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 1 J. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ^ Yes = 3 swan-mane ai[cnes are no[ ra[ea; see aiscussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1 " ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ®1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 11.75 ) 2U .Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 23. Bivalves ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; Ilellt5 LU dllU L I iuc;us vn uie presence or upiana pian[s, i[em ~y [ocuses on [ne presence or aquauc or weuano plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/21/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0070 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3497 Total Points: 38.5 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TBC22) if? 79 or perennial if? 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbur /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 18.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a . Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. a. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ ~.~u~~-~~~QUC .,~~..~~w aic n~~ ia~cu, acc wauuaal~na ul nlallual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10.5 1 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ®1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 9.25 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 2.b. Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ Z ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus., ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; RGIIIJ LV OIIV L I IVI.UJ VII IIIC ~11CSCIIGC VI ut,ldnu Nlams, Irern ca rocuses on the presence or aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Stoneflies North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/21/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 35.9967 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3501 Total Points: 37.25 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TBE17) if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr NV. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a . Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ^ Yes = 3 swan-rnaae ai[cnes are no[ ra[ea; see aiscussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 8.25 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; nCnis cu anu ~ ~ iucus un uie presence o[ upiano pian[s, i[em ca [ocuses on [ne presence of aquaUC or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/21/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 35.9971 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3490 Total Points: 12.5 Other: TBF01 Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin e.g. 4uad Name: Louisburg & West if>_ 79 or perennial if>_ 30 Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8.0) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ swan-inaue uncnes are no[ ra[ea; see aiscussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 2.5 ~ 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ^ C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 2.0 , 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ® 0 21b. Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ^; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; ncuw cu anu c i iwua un uic Nicaciil.c ui upim iu prams, uen~ ~y wcuses un uie presence or aquatic or weuano plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/04/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0011 ~ Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3441 ~ Total Points: 50.25 Other: Crooked Creek (TE20) Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin if? 19 or erennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: LOUISbUrg/W. Burin A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 24) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ^ Yes = 3 ~nan-n iauc um.nw aic nit IglG4, acc uia~waivna ni iiianuai B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11.5 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ® 1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 14.75 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21b. Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 23. Bivalves ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 24. Fish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; IlCII1J LU allU L I iacus on uie presence or upiana pianos, irem Ly rocuses on ine presence or aquatic or weuana punts. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Caddisflies, mayflies, stoneflies North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/06/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 35.9977 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3421 Total Points: 39.75 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TF86=TL22) if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ wean-mace aircnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 10.5 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 16. Leaflitter ® 1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 9.25 ) 20b. Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; items cu ana ~ i rocus on [ne presence or upiana plants, item ~a focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/11/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 35.9967 ~ Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3355 ~ Total Points: 34.75 Other: UT to Crooked Creek Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin (TT35) if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: LOUISbUr /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ~ ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ - itnan-mane aitcnes are not rates; see aiscussions rn manual B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 9 ) 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ® 1.5 ^ 1 ^ 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.75 ) 20b. Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ® 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 21b. Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ^ 0 ® 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ®; Other = 0 ^ OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; items cu ana ~ i rocus on the presence or upiana plants, item ca tocuses on the presence of aquauc or weuana plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/13/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0058 E•raluator: ESC - J. Cooper Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3518 Total Points: 15.5 Other: Drainage feature within Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin XA/XB wetland area if? 79 or perennial if? 30 e. g. Quad Name: LOUISbur /W. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 2. Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 1?. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 ® Yes = 3 ^ ~~~d~~-i~iaue unuies eie nui raiea; see aiscussions rn manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 3 1 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 ho~~rs since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ^ 1 ® 0.5 ^ 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 4.5 ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed ~ FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW Other = 0 ^ = 0.75 ^; OBL = 1.5 ®; SAV = 2.0 ^; ~~~~~~~ ~~ onv ~- ~ ivuuo vu uic N~cacni,c ~i ~N~a~~u p~a~~~~, ncni c~ iucuses un uie presence or aquaue or weuana plants. Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Recent drought conditions. Stream identified along same drainage in upstream areas before feature disperses within broader wetland near pond. Sketch: North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 09/14/07 Project: Cliftons Pond Subdivision Latitude: 36.0074 Evaluator: ESC - M. Thomas Site: Royal, NC Longitude: 78.3438 Total Points: 26.5 Other: Crooked Creek (ZK10) Stream is at least intermittent County: Franklin if>_ 79 or erennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: LoUisburg/V1/. Bunn A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a . Continuous bed and bank ^ p ^ 1 ^ 2 ® 3 2 Sinuosity ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 6. Depositional bars or benches ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 7. Braided channel ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits ^ 0 ^ 1 ® 2 ^ 3 9a. Natural levees ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 10. Headcuts ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 11. Grade controls ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ® 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. a nn__ .y_~_ ~..-~" ___ __' .__.- _'_ _ _ _ No = 0 ^ Yes = 3 B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 5 1 14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or Water in channel -dry or growing season ^ 0 ® 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 16. Leaflitter ^ 1.5 ® 1 ^ 0.5 ^ p 17. Sediment on plants or debris ^ 0 ^ 0.5 ® 1 ^ 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ^ 0 ®0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ^ Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 4 ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel ^ 3 ^ 2 ® 1 ^ 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ^ 2 ^ 1 ^ 0 22. Crayfish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 23. Bivalves ® p ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 24. Fish ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 25. Amphibians ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® p ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ^ 0.5 ^ 1 ^ 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ^; FACW = 0.75 ^; Other = 0 OBL = 1.5 ^; SAV = 2.0 ^; ~~~~•~~+ •-~ w~~u .- ~ ......,.. ~~~ uw Nicac n~,c ~~ uNianu Nianw, ncni c, IVLUJCJ VII 1110 NieSenGe UT agUBilc Or WBllana punts. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) ~ ` 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: Clifton Pond C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ~ 7 '~ 9 Z 5 State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0043° N, Long. -78.3643° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 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: 10/4/07 ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There .Are no "navigable waters of the US"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 h; ve been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S."within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) I. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~ ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent 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: 4275 linear feet: 20-45 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.89 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 19$7 Delineation Alanual 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" (c.g., typically 3 months). ' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF. 11 SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the 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 wh^ther 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: Pck'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 tom TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick Gist 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 aril West. Flow route can be described by identifying, e. g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary h, which then flows into TNW. C x'15 `: i (.,;~~ ` af. / . ._ (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)~ Tributary is: ~ Natural .~ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick .List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Yick 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: 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): 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 ine lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: `'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e. g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by developmen' or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's Flow regime (e.g., tlow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. ~..~~ . _ (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: ,a ~, ~l~ rrJ'i ~- .... f Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres,) Directly abuts? (Y/N~ Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of consideraticns 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): 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: USACE Stream Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (Total: 62). [] Tributaries of "I'NW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: !I 4' Ir Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): i ~' Tributary waters: 4275 linear feet 20-45 width (ft). '~ ®Other non-wetland waters: 35 acres. Identify type(s) of waters: pond. 3. Non-RPWsB 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 forjurisdictional 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 abut the Crooked Creek throughout review area.. ^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this • conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional 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 forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdictional 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. `' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action [o Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding C6t!~t Act Jarrsdiction Following Rrrpanos. ~~V~.r ,.~ 9tw t.--. .. ..9999 I L-___. Provide estimates forjurisdictional Maters 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 forjurisdiction. Explain: ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional .judgment (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^' Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): ^ FEMA/FIRM maps: ^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date): or ^ Other (Name & Date): Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: ^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: ^ Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): O T - ~ 9 Z 5 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Clifton Pond C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0046° N, Long. -78.3586° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Moun t) iJame of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ~' Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. ^, Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDII'1GS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) ^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There 'Are "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~ ^ 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: 1476 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.04 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on. 1987 Delinez~tion Manual Elevation of established OHWM (if known): %. 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: ~ F3oxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ilf below. ' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically tlows 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: 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.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: 8,300 acres Drainage area: 100 acres Average annual rainfall: 47.28 inches Average annual snowfall: 2.7 inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW. Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from "ITIW. Project waters are 1 (orless) aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWS: UT to Crooked Creek, Crooked Creek, Tar River. Tributary stream order, if known: IS` . ' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the grid West. ' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to Clow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. f ~ 3~j~r _- y ~ t,. , J~. ,: • i (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: 1 - 5 feet Average depth: 1 -3 feet Average side slopes: Vertical (l:l orless). 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: sloughing banks. Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: few, but not many. Tributary geometry: Meandering Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Intermittent but nUt seasonal flow Estimate average number of Clow events in review area/year: 11-20 Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: lliscrete and confined. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ® Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ the presence of litter and debris ^ changes in the character of soil ^ shelvin ^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation g ^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^ the presence of wrack line ^ sediment sorting ^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^ scour ^ sediment deposition ^ water staining ^ multiple observed or predicted flow events ^ b h ^ other (list): a rupt c ange in plant community ® Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:looses indicators in some places. If factors other than the OHWM were used to determin Hi h Tid Li e lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): g e ne indicated by: ^' ^ oil or scum line along shore objects Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ 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: no water in stream at time of site visit. Identify specific pollutants, if known: sedimentation. `'A nah_ual or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (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. fl u /t ~ R ~`~ _.i. '_ (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): < 200. ® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: riparian. ^ 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:0.04 acres Wetland type. Explain: riparian wetland. Wetland quality. r,xplain: good. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Unknov•~q. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ® Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are ' U-15 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2 - 5-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: sari~rated just below the surface. Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):mesic mixed, > 10 dbh, 100' to > 200' ® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Hardwoods. ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( ) a.;res in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts (YM) Size (in acres Directly abuts (Y/N) Size in acres Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? ~ Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: Wetlands have the capacity to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW. 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 WATERSM'ETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: C~ . '~. ~. ~; ~~- 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 direct)};;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: 1476 linear feet 5 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 IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^' Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional 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: 0.04 acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.' As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. ^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or ^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or ^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo 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: "See Footnote # 3. '' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "'Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Dish•icts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memornrulunt Regarding CWA Act Jurisrlictiat Following Rapunos. :'~ \ / \ Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): ' Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction 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 forjurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ~^ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters' study: ® U. S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ 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):USDA National Weather and Climate Center (ftp: //ftp. wce. nres. usda. goy/support/climate/wetlands/ne/37069. txt). B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: ~~,,~) ~_.:r APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: ~ T 1 9 2 5 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long irk degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0028° N, Long. -78.3520° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ^ 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: 10-8-07 ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There .1re 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 rlre "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): r ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters ^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 243 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.73 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation 11lanual 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 III below. ' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is no[ a TNW and that typically tlows 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 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.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: .Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick. List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to 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 aril West. ' Flow route can be described by identifying, e g., tributary a, which (lows through the review area, to tlow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. G- (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apps Tributary is: ^ Natural ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ^ Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ ^ changes in the character of soil ^ ^ shelving ^ ^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^ ^ leaf litte° 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 `~. ... t"P.. .~ ': ~ I._ 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 nanual 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 tlow 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 Characteristic. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity_(Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List. floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics.: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. `mil y~::~ -l':; For each wetland, specify the following: Directlv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directlv abuts? (YM) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: I. 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 itselt; 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 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. 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: visited site several times over three weeks, always had flow. 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: 243 linear feet4 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 RPW: See jurisdictional map.. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^' Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC. 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 remainsjurisdictional. ^ 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 (I-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. To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "' 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/F.PA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Fallowing Rapanos. ,j..},; . },;~; 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 ofjurisdiction 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 (fr). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: .acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ 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: ~1 r .~-~~ ,~ ,fl., 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: O T ~ ~ ~ 2 5 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.9955° 1V, Long. -78.3563° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ® 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: ] 0-8-07 ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U. S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA)jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: , B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMIN.4,TION OF JURISDICTION. There .ore "waters of the US."within Clean Water Act (C WA)jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~ ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters ^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 22 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 50 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 III below. ' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (c.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: 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.Z. 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.C below. I. 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 "1'NW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to 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 grid West. ' Flow route can be described by identifying e. g., tributary a, which tlows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then tlows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)• Tributary is: ^ Natural ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/%cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: 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: 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): 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 ine lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: ''A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily 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. '[bid. (iv) Biological Characteristic. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland syste.n (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: ~" ~'~ + Directly abuts? (Y/N~ Size (in acres, Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TN Ws, 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 IILD: 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 IILD: 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 WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ~, Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (71). 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: .~ ~ ,==' i Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): r ~. Tributary waters: 22 linear feet 3 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 IILC. Provide estimates forjurisdictional 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: See jurisdictional map.. 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 forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 50 acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^', Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at section IILC. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC. Provide estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. ,. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdictional 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 Foon~ote # 3. To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 11LD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "' 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 ~Ylemorandrrm Re;artlin; CGVA Act Ja~risdiclion Fo!loivi~ag 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 ] 987 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 forjurisdiction. Explain: Other: (explain, if not covered above): ' Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ 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 1~ 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 O 7 _ 1925 This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.9992° N, Long. -78.3430° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ^ 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: 10-8-07 Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF~FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There :ire no "navigable waters of the U. S."within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) ^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Regz~iredJ Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~ ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent 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: 3434 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.40 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation ,tilanual 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: 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 "I'NW 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 _ f t The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. ~f 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.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Picl: list Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to 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 grid 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 applyl' Tributary is: ^ Natural ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ^ Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ ^ 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 CWAjurisdiction (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. Chap icteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: ~~ , Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts (YM) Size (in acresl Summarize overall bi logical, 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: I. 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 WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (Total: 68). ^ 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: t Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: 3434 linear feet3 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 jurisdictic~~tal 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 arejurisdictional 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: See jurisdictional map.. ^ 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: 0.40 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 forjurisdictional 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 arejurisdictional. 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 I'1TRA-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. To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "'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. .. t .,_ Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: ^ Wetlands: acres. ~- F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ^, Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers. streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ National wetlands inventory mr;~(s). Cite name: ^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): ^ FEMA/FIRM maps: ^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date): or ^ Other (Name & Date): ^ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ^ Applicable/supporting case law: ^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: ^ Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION 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: ~ 7 ~ 9 2 5 State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0065° N. Long. -78.3437° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ® 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: 10-9-07 ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) ^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are '`waters of the US"within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Requirea~ 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~ ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent 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: 624 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.19 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delii-eation i\Ianual 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 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 flLl~. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs a~ `I~ ~_ -.. ._.. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1, only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the 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.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify Clow route to TNWS: Tributary stream order, if known: ' Note that the tnstnictional 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 tlows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)• Tributary is: ^ Natural ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: 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: 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): 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 ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lineslchanges in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: `A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily 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 tlow 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 Characteristic:. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW• ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity_(Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: ~_.. Directly abuts? (YM) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YM~ Size (in acresl 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 amounYof 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: 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 i[s adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Tributaries had characteristics of perennial stream: defined bed & bank, flow, streambed sorting, etc. "IYibutaries 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: !~ •~ ~. I` u Y~ <.. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: 624 linear feet3 width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: , 3. Non-RPWsB that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: See jurisdictional map.. 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: 0.19 acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flaw 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 (I-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 IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "' Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ f'or review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisrllction Following Rupa~ms. a - ~~. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. - F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). [^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: . ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ^' Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ® U.S. Geological Survey map(s): Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ 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: ~~~ i'°° . APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Royal Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0095° N, Long. -78.3443° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 NC State Plane Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River (Rocky Mount) Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 ® 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: 10-9-07 ^ Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required) ^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (C WA)jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) ~.. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r ^ 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 jur sdictional 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: 135 linear feet: 6 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation IVianual 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 111 below. Z For purposes of this Y'orm, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a "I~NW 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: 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.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 PickList river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to 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 aril 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 Tributarv Characteristics (check all that applyl: 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 sub;'.trate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ^ Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ ^ 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: 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 (lip'): 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 ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: `'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the 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 Cha-acteristics: 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: Fick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by oerm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximit~(RelationshipLo TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick Lisa aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. ~- _. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. ~.,n. For each wetland, specify the following: "' ~~` Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts (Y/N) Size in acres Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? ~ Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: I. 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 IILD: 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 IILD: 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 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. 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: USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (Total: 53). 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: 135 linear feet6 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 forjurisdictional 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 forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional 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: xSee Footnote # 3. To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. "' Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps llistricts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memornrrrlum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rnpanos. Provide estimates for jurisdictional Waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: ^ Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ^; U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 -Louisburg, NC. ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Franklin County, NC. ^ 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: ~~ ~ ~ r ( -~ " - - ~ .., 1~ I ~~. .. .r 1` I,~ ii, . rl ~ ~ ._~ , ~ r 1, V ~ \~. '• ~,i~1 ~+~' fi . ,~ I ~ ~r r rl ~ f, ~y ~j ~l1 ° Gr'~~,~`'~~ '~ ~~~ Franklin County, NC ,, r~ 3e ~ _ I (~, r~~ ti!; t~~ri ~r 35r ~ j ~ _.. ~~Q~ R. ~~~' s '~ T~ ~ ,~_., rrf~ ~r~ ~ ~lr r - 58111 I r ft' ~~ ', ~ 1. _~ ' ~~ rr rl •' ('i r~' - •Rov31~ ._ ~-; f~,,,., 'I r ~~rf ~ ~ - '~` ~~. ~y ' , ~ t ` ,~ I J . ~ ~'vV 1 1 l t i s ~ , ~ _ ~ ~ .~ ;\ ~ ~~ V L ,. _y1 ~ ~ ,.~"• Imo' ~ ,f ~ I'i p. ~~~ (N - / f~ ~.A S~ ~,., ~.r Yom. .~ .~O /. r lIQ6 's P,- ~ `~ ~ ,~ ~r t. _ _ if f~. 1 ~_ - - ( ` , ~1; V r~s~, i v ~t~~ ~ h ~. - /' , ~, ,11_ ~~= ' ~PAt ri Cam- r ~ r + { ~ r { `~I ~ 1 j .` 11\'j~.. v_'~ ~ • \ ~..f '~ ~ ~I{fff ~~~-,'/ f rj} ~'~ .~ r , '. ---E' \~ ~-`',,'_S _-7'- --r-~ 1 l.' ~_ r a ~: _: ~ ~ 1 ~ i L h~~ ~ ~ ` _, ~1 ; }1} ~-1, (~r;tt./ 1 i- /I~~ ~'~~~ ! , + r 1l'~A I F~~~ f~-...!~1 _. _-., ti1C. I^ 1 I~~l ,~."„ k~r. l •V 1 `` ~ ~ r/ ~ ~ It . _ it ~c , ~• - ~: . ' ~. ` j/ - . -4 ` !_1~ •( ~ ,~ __ 'Pmt --~:~~'- _ ~\ t -~--r-*~--> ~ -~, s-; ~I r 138~~~=~ ~~~¢~ ~ "- S,-. t~~'~M~ ~,, .- 11~~{ l~ hs v ~~~ Lr'~-,~\~ ~"'1//~_.,~1 ~~ ' ~'r^ 1 `~~ N s t r ` , V/"_ ~ '1\i~1~ ~ i \~i1 !.!"~ .' \~ rI.`(l~' ~ ,~~ ~;~ l3~„J ~ ~- n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~r~, Z43 ' r ~•.11ti ~~ ~- ._ j. I 1 l; / .V•I! _ ~~ ~ l ll--.. ,- r ~~ ','•~,/f r ..~_ 1J1{,~/ ~r.l ` } '~~i ''• ~._~~ rf ;, Ir ~ 1~(%~' Yr ,r` : 1, r r r/ J\ r ~ .,~, ~.\.Y~ - ~ 11 v~, If ~. t / ~~' ~ 1 ~ Cl. _\ ~~~+ _, r -. i~ 1 r 1 ~: i -, 1 . i ~ I~ 1 .l~- - (1i ' ~`~ ,; so. I ~ ~ .fir--~ ~ 1-_.-.. ~ r.., 1 _. ~~ ~ r ~• I - ~ r MYland~FtdE ~ ~:~ ~c ~-, t e ,. ~ ~ s ~ 11 I 11•:. ~, ~ 1 ~~1~~~ ; :'4~ ~ 1 ~ \i J p ~ ~ l)i "~~~A.~,~1-. aa~ ~-~a~q ~ x~ _ air lI ~ ~ _ ~S ~ ~~>1 ~1~ ~., r r s ~ ~ ..gin 1 ~`{ l{ ; , ~ 'i /~- ~-11J ~ 1, A __ ~ ~ r \ ~1 ~- hJ ' //'~ ~ i~r i 35 .. > I I ~~. ~l t.. •' i ~ ~ r 1'~ r-~' ~ A i I i y , ~ i ' J/l~ ~tl.~ V' , ,, _.... J `,t r ~ (i- /. ~i rJr//~\~` \ , ~~'^~ ~ 1 ~ .a ~rl~` r W-`"'~ _,i ~ r ~\ ~. t l r , . ,'1 -,a ~`~ r - ~\."`,~ 'i' .~\'~V' /', V ~~~-/~~Ir~~. ' ~r`~ Q~ - ~ ~. .\r. f (., ~~ r~ JOD r~' / ~ \., ~ r`•.,Il ~..~ _ !{ 1~'1~1 ~a~, I: i I I , , ~ I 'tip - ) , ~ ~ / I ~ ) '~. r k/ I sue, i `L>~ 1 it ~ ~' ~ - ,~, ~ ~ ~ r r ~~.\' ~ '1~(,. ~ ~'~' r. i r' r Y 1{ ( - - - I ~,-1:'~ l j ~Y ~l'??' b 1sr' ,r i )~ i y ` t1 ~ _ ) 1 V /r f rr tl(( 1~~~ ~~ 1 ~ A'-~ .~ i /~,` ~ . ~ .~ (1 ~ )'~ . i '~~_ 11r ~ ,,1j(,•.11 1,`` 1 l f1i' f ~'~~ r; ~ \\t~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C ~' ~~' ~ 'R ,1v~ i 1~' ~ I~~ / ' VAt ,:~ ~ ~ i li ~ ~ t l~ I ~ ._') ~I ~~,~~ ~ x~ 1,. it S ~'(l { ~' 37~ i~ /~.-' t 1 ~t ti-r~ ,~f r~ld~l ~, A~~i `, ~' 1 ,lu 1~ ~.~ v lp~~ , ~i. 1!~ t1 1,, t ~`.. ~ r r !r4 i r`~~ I ~ ^4~4:ii5i \, 1 ~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~ 1~ ~ 1tv~: I \ ~ { )f j` _ ~ ~ ~i{y,~ ~~Il it ~ Z ` I { ~ ~ ( ~ i~. -fi ~~ 1~1. r~ f/ ~ ~11~ /C \ i11 \ { ~ ~ l ._1 ~i./^~,t2Gr'/~ 'r 1 ~ /:~ ~nl } ~~ ~1 ' L i'ftl v U ~ ~ r-1i - rr t Ill o$;. Subject Property r~, ``;yC'~. ~,~~ ~ ~ ` - ;~ ~,~ r'r ~~~~ r ~ i.. ~ ~' ... I . ~ t ~ ~ , '•~14 1 ~ 1{, r'r %-r `~ s ; A i ~ U iV CQ is •~ ~; r V,, r 1 y. _ , ~~ ~ ; ' ~ r ~ ; ,~r„r~ r, t~ »' „ ~ 0 5001,000 2,000 ,, ~ ,~' _ Source: Louisburg and Bunn /West USGS quadrangles ~ ; . r ! , - ~~ I . ; r ~~~ r' . Feet I oW~sy: ckday: FIGURE PROJECT LOCATION ~~~~:_ti -~ ~~-"1sl Date: ES EBB ~x~ _ „i d'~ ~ ~ SEP 2007 I ~~ ~ _ .Clifton Pond Subdivision ~ o ~ ~;, Scale: 1 O EcoScicnce '•y'. ,' ~~t; 1" = zooo~ .. _. Franklin Count North Carolina ~' ` -~ sc Protect No: Corporation Y, f. ~ G_:: ...__ Raleigh. North Carolina 07-371 r~; ~Y t ' ~ ~, ~: 5 _ ~J'JeC Royal- ~ 7`. r". ,~ , ;~ ,I ~ . HeB ApB ~J ~ ~ U ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~fVeC - .: ~s:~ ~ ::~ ~ , w.- , w n \ pB ~ r ~\~' • Ca.B - ''aJv •Z~ ~ ~2-~~ i`~•~ _. .., . . - i J. _t . ~. _ _ r,D. ~^J~~ ,, ~~s~eB ~ ~..ir~~ •~ ', ~aB P ~ . ~J, c C i_ V- ~ i .i ~ s ~. ~ ~ ' ~,i sn~bD _4; i ~~ HeB 4lPoQ - ~ ChA +~ r . eH '~ ,.,.... a NP B \. Gh A n t _ ~~ l~ J ~D ~ -~-~ '1VeC C'Ir ni ~ " ... ~~ .. ~z ~~~ ~ w hVeC ~ ~~~,,f,D ,,, ~ ~ ~ !''JbD_ ..._.~' M r . ~r,~; fa .~. ,,.. t ~ cam., - T S' rrleB 4~1e~ ~ ~ 14~~~- ~ ?Ne,~s~ vcao uvuu ~~ ~ / /~~ fl ~ ~ J r IOJ ~ \) U'leC UVaB 4"JeB Pend " j ~ , ("'~. ~ ~~~ 1 t ~. •-,,,~ya4sq~, ~ 1.~JbD ~~ ~ v~9;'r iJ' - - ~~N ., WbD 'Jde B( ~^J~E _ \ ~leB ,- VJaB AaA ~' G'r'bD ut'eC !' 4^JbD ~~ ~,~~eP ~ V~JcE '~!aB WeB _ l"JeC ~ „ '~ U•Ja~ NeB ~ ~, l'~JaB - t'JcE /~' bD I HeB WeB MeB f 1 ~JJe6 ~ - ~ 3 ~ L~ ~j~ ` ~ ~ ~ wwaf ,~;~~~ 1 ~ ~\ tiro ~ ~ ~ -~J'i? 'If',i^~ Streams a Wetlands Open Water Subject Property Source: NAIP 2006 Aerial Photograph ~ 1 a~ !.. ~: ~.~__ ~, _~..~' _ :...:.. ',~ ~ i. ~. ~ Y ~ ~~ . ~F ~'~ ~ ~ '~ SEP 20071 As Shown ESC Project No.: 07-371 FIGURE 4 LEGEND r 7., ;...-~. " ." I JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER ---- PROJECT STUDY AREA I. ~~~\~~, _ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM l SHEET 5A ;- SHEET 8A ~` SHEET 9A ." ., SHEET 10A SHEET 6A .:;, ~~~ ~ SHEET 7A '! i SHEET 11A SHEET 12A L. ~~ ,~~ -- 800 0 800 SCALE: 1 "=800 ~~ EcoScience Corporation Rdeigh, Noeh Carolina REVISION i„ ~ _ -- m ~ - Q Z - r~ -r ~ Y f ~I~~~~:. SHEET 13A ~ MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC CLIFTON POND SUBDIVISION I SHEET 14A JURISDICTIONAL AREA SHEET INDEX ~pp ~ +;~ ~ }a t~~ I ~ ~ Date: SCALE: ~S'" ~ }.:' Oct 2007 AS SHOWN f:, ~it.-~ ~ ~ ,~~~i ESC Project No.: 07-371.00 "ti='"~ FIGURE ai.i r,, ,:, 4 0 a z Q~w1Q7r. ~~ ~~ ~ OCT 1 & 2007 ~~~~, ~'Ar~a ~fArdl),w~+VOSi(Y,;~,~v~TER BRANCH EcoScience Corporation Raleigh, North Carolim I REwsioN I MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC Fr~~~~l. CLIFTON POND SUBDIVISION ~• ~~ c~P T~ti~~ ~ LEGEND ~,.. .+ r ::.,,, - JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER ---- PROJECT STUDY AREA ~~I~~~ , JURISDICTIONAL STREAM 200 0 200 SCALE: 1 "=200 „T 3 11~~ ~ .~ ... ;~ JURISDICTIONAL AREA SHEET 4A Dwn By: Ckd. By: TAL xxx Date: SCALE: Oct 20071 AS SHOWN ESC Project No.: 07-371.00 FIGURE 4A SHEET SA LEGEND " JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND 200 0 200 SCALE: 1 "=200 Dwn By: Ckd. By: TAL zxx Oate: SCALE: Oct 2007 AS SHOWN ESC Project No.: 07-371.00 JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER - -- PROJECT STUDY AREA ~~I~\\/ ; JURISDICTIONAL STREAM FIGURE 5A A1AT(`LJI I~IC cCC curCT ~n ~~ATr^NI INF OFF ~NFFT 1(lA 200 0 200 SCALE: 1"=200 LEGEND r . " ~ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER --- PROJECT STUDY AREA ~~I~\\~~ ; JURISDICTIONAL STREAM r~ ro Q Z EcoScience Corporation Rddgh, Nash Cuolim REVISION MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC Pr~jE~t: r`=' ~' ~~'~~~~r; '°~ CLIFTON POND ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ SUBDIVISION OCT 1 E X00? UENR • ~NA7~R UUA,~ i i'r WEMNt}~~~iD STO~!~k!'ATEF VRq. H am ~;;r....~~~~,~. JURISDICTIONAL AREA SHEET 6A TAL xxx Date: SCALE: Oct 2007 AS SHOWN ESC Project No.: 07-371.00 FIGURE 6A MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7A SHEET 6A r ~ ~Cp r ~. r ~ 7 O Q Z EcoScience Corporation Raleigh, Nash Cvolioa REVISION MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC 07 ~,~ '/~i~-" 1117 ' ~i OCT 1 ~ 2007 P~~~~~1. CLIFTON POND SUBDIVISION gE~dR • WATER QUALI i r W~T1AtdCS,~V~;TC'~~"!ATER ~24~1~. JURISDICTIONAL AREA SHEET 7A 200 0 LEGEND r '. ~ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER ---- PROJECT STUDY AREA ~~I~\~ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM SCALE: 1 "=200 200 Own By: Ckd. By: TAL zxx Date: SCALE: Oct 2007 AS SHOWN ESC Project No.: 07-371.00 FIGURE 7A Q W W W W W Z_ J S U Q LEGEND JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER ---- PROJECT STUDY AREA ^ ~~I~\ M \~, , ~, JURISDICTIONAL STREA 200 0 200 SCALE: 1"=200 Q W W I W W W Z J 2 U Q EcoScience Corporation Reldgh, North Ca~ohoe REVISION r'1 ~ _ Q Z MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ti CLIFTON POND SUBDIVISION 0 C T 1 ~ 2007 ~fin~~ - w~r~a +~'~TL1t~Jp.~ ~.~VD Srp;Q,~Q T RISRAIQCH T~ I~ JURISDICTIONAL AREA SHEET 10A TAL zxz Date: SCALE: Oct 2007 AS SHOWN ESC Project No.: D7-371.00 FIGURE 10A MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6A MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11A EcoScience Corporation Raleigh, North Cuotiaa REVISION Q Z r ~;o, MARCUS EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC /i I '~~,, ~~. LEGEND . : ,~, - , " " " ~" JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL OPEN WATER ---- PROJECT STUDY AREA ~~~~~\~ \ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM ~- 200 ~ 200 SCALE: 1 "=200 ~~~ ~ I ~ ~" ~ CLIFTON POND SUBDIVISION r~tia~. JURISDICTIONAL AREA '~ ,~; SHEET 12A ",,~~,~ ~~ ~`a r ~~ ~ ~,, .1 tii h ~ ~'' f i 0` I ~ tY!i Dwn By: Ckd. By: ;.:~ 2~~,' TAL zxz '~~N Date: SCALE: N~~~UupSTr~RC2tJgi~l, opt zoos As sHOwN ~r~~,~~ ~ ESC Project No.: FIGURE 12A i VL L l33HS 33S IINI�HOiVM c c C, c c w Q z 3 z w � � 3 o Q U) 0 z z z z o o V) o w CD pD W C) 11J V) U) 3 N J Cl -I Q� 0 of NU x 3 0 p J p J x zo o u Z a Z Z Z �7 -< 00 Z C N oc z a o ►•� r m 'o w J Q o Q • U O z N p LLI W L Q V LLJ U o V� z Na Z z Op Y pQ w O Z M 0 = O Q `i. N Z N N W r x �.J LLJ 1 U N = N m o a < m LLJ p o o w VL L l33HS 33S IINI�HOiVM c c C, c c w Q z 3 z w � � 3 o Q U) 0 z z z z o o V) o w CD pD W C) 11J V) U) 3 N J Cl -I Q� 0 of