20080367 Ver 1_401 Application_20080208

0 6- 0 3 6 7
' ' ATLANTIC PLAN ENGI1 EERING CORPORATION
ENGINEFRM NOW AND FOR THE FllM11L
Date: February 25, 2008
To: Amanda Jones
Corp of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 O\
Re: Ken Gottfried's BBQ Project
Attached are the items you requested on September 20, 2007 incomplete application notification.
Tamp Bandy, WNR Consultants, submitted a Jurisdictional Determination Request, which is
included.
Please call me if have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Thank you,
Richard J. ranklin
President
df/pdt phi 1
""F7 i_A N4>5 nl lii S i 0? Dt',V,U E P 6 ?i
PO Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603
[phone] [phone] Fax
[e-mail]
08-0367 - v-1
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check„heree= ? x= ?; e
II. Applicant Information s
1. Owner/Applicant Information
{? 1i7caJ'?i?arkpRAltiCi?
Name: Smiles III, Inc/Ken Gottfried
Mailing Address: 485 Private Drive
Sugar Grove, NC 28679
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
n.,_,. c ,.r 1 "I
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: HC BBQ
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1981-67-0991-000
4. Location
County: Watauga Nearest Town: Boone
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Boone, go NW on
Hwy 421/321. Site is on right just past Lonnie Henson Road.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36.2412 ON 81.7602 °W
6. Property size (acres): 7-acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Brushy Fork
8. River Basin: Watauga
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site is primarily open but contains a few forested areas
Surrounding properties are primarily large forested or agriculture tracts
n,..`.. L -4r 1'1
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project involves the construction of a BBQ restaurant and its associated parkiga lot and
entrance ways. Typical mg/excavating_equipment, such a bulldozers and trackhoes will
be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The project will provide necessary buildable
area. parking lots. and entrance ways for a BBQ restaurant to service the surrounding
community.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any firture permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No known future plans proposed at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: SEE ATTACHED SHEET

HC BBQ
Pre-Construction Notification
February 19, 2008
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts
to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact
must be listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed
separately from riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All
proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and
clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all
streams (intermittent and perennial) should be shown on a delineation map, whether or
not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream evaluation and
delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be included at the
applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation,
list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
1. This project will impact 0.0643 acres of wetlands on this property. A BBQ
Restaurant is proposed on this area. Material will be removed and fill
material will be brought to the site. Two jurisdictional ditches shown on the
attached sketch will also be impacted.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1. Excavation/Fill Pasture Yes Beside .0643
2. Excavation/Fill Ditch Yes 70-feet .0138
3. Excavation/Fill Ditch Yes 200-feet .0696

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.643
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
()
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial Intermittent 9
? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
UT to Brushy Fork Road Crossing

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Tl--- 0 ..r 1
6. List t]
e cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project;
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
T.--n ..r 1.I
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/M/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
T-1- _,. 1 n ..c i n
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* I Impact I Required
f?,....,. o r--+N Multiplier
1 I N/A 13 (2 for Catawba) I N/A
1 2 1 1.5
1 Total I
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
n___ 1 1 „C 1'1
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No ?
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Y'b--- 1'1 ,.C t'I

Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
US ACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Ms. Amanda Jones
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Re: The H.C. BBQ
Watauga County, North Carolina
JD Request
Dear Ms. Jones:

December 5, 2007
The purpose of this correspondence is to request that a Jurisdictional Determination be
completed for our delineation of the above referenced project. We assessed there to be
one intermittent stream channel, one wetland area, and two ditched areas located on the
property in addition to Brushy Fork. The attached wetland sketch reveals the locations of
these features on the property. The intermittent channel has been relocated and is
ditchlike in areas. The wetland area is a result of overflow of this channel. The ditched
areas were created in highground, but we assessed them to be regulated because they
connect to jurisdictional features. Large spoil piles are evident along these ditches. JD
forms for these areas are included. However, we were not certain on how best to account
for the ditched areas on the JD form.
Agent authorization, usgs, soil survey, aerial photograph, dataforms, and site vicinity maps
are also attached for your review. Feel free to call with any questions that you may have.
Best regards,
Tamp Bandy
Phone: [phone]
Newton Office Canton Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com PO Box 882
Newton, NC 28658 Canton, NC 28716
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
Page 1 of 1
http://www. wataugacounty.org/ArcIMSOutput/W ataugaAndBoone_arcims361638843392... 12/5/2007
MapQuest: Maps, Addresses, Business Directory & Satellite Photos
MA, P C k U, E-'-'S,'T- .
[9103-9299] Us Highway 421 N
Boone NC
28607 US
Notes:
Only text visible within note field will print.
MAPQUEST
¢G
.L
1
.,:1__
Plan a Road Trip with
No worries.
d
a
uun?i""``s
Page 1 of 1

200 m
oEHEESP 600 ft
CL_
'Qd
a Rd
a?
0
x
b
a?
h
o ?aF
321 X421,
44
a n,.
c
?N
7
p0
4d
02CO7hlapQuesl Inc. Plop Data U.) 2C07 N)kVTEQ or TeleAras
All rights reserved. Use Subject to License/Copyright
This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all
risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/print.adp?mapdata=Qg5DZUIxQC%252bH%252flDKU... 12/4/2007

z 81.783 333 ° W 81.766 666 ° W 81.7504 000'W 81.733 ki?1§°
(D
(0 lee (D
(0
W-
04
(D Cove ('r(,ek 5ch
(0
Cl)
? j +
ts{

• ?
-? \ « i
?'a
? ? Va 1erpQi,? C? _
r l
811ga Grove

f 40 13 ET I Y R ? K
z ?4 \ HMR61- BRVSIIY F ?

O

V
-
--= 273
- ?

t
I - --
- -=
-....- ...:
- _
°
N
CO - -
\, _
?. -
(l Hc;wCU Cem. ?
.,. .i•
ap
. .?
-
?
N

(? ..
r

fr ? St

\
\>`\`? r?? / {
Cvumill !/ ork
Fa.? - ,
Gap '°•° \ kddp4s Cesr
a'• 7„ '1??i iwlfaT'r1 :CiQ

Z z
1
` Nay f . r Fork (, 6 M
,
CO cQ0
Cl)

JA
F.'ti ;f .'BairdGreeti1{Cl I /-,

?? ,/ )1 C? ? !f

\V ?\iFt• cp

co

B A4 MR 7
cow ; ?
? ,
j
..jj
r

?R 1. r
{{

?

c p -

W
fa '
X, Husky
Knob '0.

z

ro
i
o .
- fD
co
r
; -.
\
C\j 1 N
(6 `

81.783d333 0 W 81.7661
666 ° W 81.750
000 ° W 81.733$ ,
0- - ° 33
Name: VALLE CRUCIS Location: 036.2412282°N 081-7602054° W
Date: 12/3/2007 Caption: Ken Gottfried BBQ
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Watauga County, North Carolina
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc.
The H.C. BBQ - Soil Survey
S E a top IAC Jo
10C j
013 3 ?? 3h
3F? 5??3'1 Fi a
34E 3 aq
g a z q lop
3,1
lr e 3?{E
3,1 17
( r
5-E, A 7- ZA
I w
lop
' 3 M *+ { / D fat
70
?pR t4 v. ` 3wE
10?.
''?< ayE r
Soil Legend
4A - Nikwasi loam, 0-3 percent slopes, frequently flooded
IOB - Saunook loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
IOD - Saunook loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
34E - Chesnut-Edneyville complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes, stony
34F - Chesnut-Ache complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, very stony
UA I A FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: The H.C. BBO Date: November 2007
Applicant / Owner: Atlantic Plan Engineering County: Watau¢a
Investigator: Bandy State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? yes ® No ? Community ID: floodplain
Is the site signiflcantiy disturbed (Atypical situation)? yes[] No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? yes o No ® Plot ID: W Area
(explain on reverse If needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Platt Species r SWUM Dominant Plant species k stmum
1. Festuca patensis FACU herb 9.
2. Juncus eflusus FACW+ herb 10.
3. Carex sp. FACW+ herb 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC- 7%
Remarks: The area is nredom:mandy fescue.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12"
® No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Pollens in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. n/a ML)
Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit:n/asia) ? Oxidized Roots Chamois in Upper 12°
? Wow-Stained Lesvos

Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) ? FAC-14outral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
page 2 DF1
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Saunook Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mixed. supeaactive, mesic Humic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ? No

profile Dewdodw:
Depth Me ft Colors Mo
ttle Colors Moab Texture, Concretions,
(inches) H n (Murwil Moist) L1 1 Moist) ire, etc.
0-9 Ail 10YR 4/3 / loam
9-12 Bt 10YR 4/6 / loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
? Suifidle Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gloved or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Other (E)tplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ? Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No ® Within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Hydric Solis Present? Yes 0 No
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
US. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Watauga City: Boone
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.2412° N, Long. 81.7602° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator. 17 04 31 752 E 4010 928 N
Name of nearest waterbody: Brushy Fork
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Watauga River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (RUC): Watauga (06010103)
® 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 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 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 US. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: +/-250 linear feet: varies width (ft) and/or +/- 0.07 acres.
Wetlands: 0 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: Areas did not meet criteria in 1987 delineation manual.
'Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section M.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section HLDA.; otherwise, see Section HIM 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 Ropanas 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 HLD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HLDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section M.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: (HUC 06010103 entire drainage) 870 square miles
Drainage area: 4 acres
Average annual rainfall: 69.17 inches
Average annual snowfall: 29.9 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: no.
Identify flow route to TNW5: Ditch flows to UT to Brushy Fork to Cove Creek to Watauga River.
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Ditch was created in highground to drain seep. It is connected to
a jurisdictional channel off property.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: varies feet
Average depth: vanes feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ® Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: Juncus effusus, Carex sp., Vernonia sp., Polygonum sp.,
Eupatorium purpureum, Rubus sp., Rosa multiflora, 80 % cover
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Ditched, huge spoil piles evident.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: none present.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
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: no flow present at the time of our site visit.
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 ?
? 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.7 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):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
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.
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): wooded, 29.
? 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? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TWWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (f).
? 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:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 1111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? 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.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.DA of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memonrndum Reganling CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
? 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 soil 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: wetland sketch.
® 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 inch = 2000 feet, Valle Crucis.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Watauga County Soil Survey.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Watauga County GIS.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicabletsupporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
Identify type(s) of waters:
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Area is a ditch through highground that has somewhat naturalized. It was dug to
drain a seep and connects to a regulated channel off property. The property owner is Ken Gottfried.
L
V
p O ° C c
L -4+
4- N N
-E 0 q) r r>
o _- cv - co
fn 7 O +, - U
N C (A
O
O :; 3 N j 0
C
NO .? O
d C 00-6 :3 U C
0 :Z; z3 Ev0o\oo
ap (n o L O
V
C vj C Ul ° O
•c c -, v •L Q L v
C O 4- - v N
y+ O (A
O N O p O N O
. - a.+
O
EXo C wEvo•°-
N41v- >,O_
.D 0,- N O
L-
0-0 O U O O a
.? a
L ° _ o a
- ° U °
O p U >O rn0 m
O N C C
° 7 N T CL - L v 'N
v ?vQ °+; v a
o•- c 0 C
L ?
O U C
LZ U)
0 a) COQ >>C a-CD
p O a
O 0-0
04-' c o= >,av
z(DvaT4,
O -0 N U V
L- coco
CL oo'C0+•CD a
Cl --' 't. a> > ° o
a.__ o >a 3: _.E
U
0
°w
0
a
z
0
J
Q
z
O
_U
D
Ln
af
3

C)
f
?o
µ
~? it
O
I4
a

O
r'
t; r I
r • o ?
• ,y Cl
i
LL to
f?
j • ix ? ? ? J

i ur i 1 ? ? Q

r l1 ? _ C

I
i
1 ?
z a1
?,
z
rte; ? ?? ( ?
1

0
Q o
O C41
N ?
O
a g d
o
a
4
Yom. Q ?
J
W
?? 2 ? r
r-{ dJ
? ? d N
D
p? SZ
o
.n
a ?
?x
_.S l
w
1 I ? ?
J ?
° N
2 d
w Y N G
a®
? e
? ?y o
p .-ImWe
O ?.?c9
z?

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
US. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I• BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Watauga City. Boone
Center coordinates of site Oadlong in degree decimal format): Lat. 362412° N, Long. 81.7602° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator. 17 04 31 752 E 4010 928 N
Name of nearest waterbody: Brushy Fork
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (1`NW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Watauga River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Watauga (06010103)
® Check if map/diagram of review area an&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 FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area [Required)
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Required)
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Inmate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
to 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: 221 linear feet: 2 width (ft) and/or 0.03 (0.01-stream and 0.02-ditch) acres.
Wetlands: 0.06 acres.
a Limits (boundaries) o( Jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manuel
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated watentwedands (check if applicable)-?
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Arm did not meet criteria in 1987 delineation manual.
'Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Sectim III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting docuntontWou is presented in Section UF.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies win assert jurisdiction over TNWs sad wetlands adjacent to TNW& If the aquatic resource Is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; R the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IILD.L; otherwise, see Section ELB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent:
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND 115 ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarises heformatioa regarding characteristics of the tributary and its a4facent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards fer jurisdiction established under Fappavw bave 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 floor at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jmiulletioasl. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IILD.1 If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section M DA
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 bfornatio n 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 sig,iific?at nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
H the waterline is not an RFW, or a wetbud directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. N 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. H the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III .B.1 for
the tributary, Section I11.B.2 for any onaite wetlands, and Section 111.113 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offate. The determination whether a sigmiscaut nexus exists hs determined In Section 11LC below.
1. Characteristics of non.TNWs that lbw directly or indirectly into TNW
(h) General Area Conditions:
Watershed Sim. (HUC 06010103 entire drainage) 870 square miles
Drainage area: 44 acres
Average annual rainfall: 69.17 inches
Average annual snowfall: 29.9 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationft with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 axial (straigh() miles from 7W
.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: no.
Identify flow route to TNWS: Tributary flows to Brushy Fork to Cove Creek to Watauga River.
Tributary stream order, if (mown:
n Note that the lnstiucbonal Gaidebook contains additioosi inf%Matiar regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, eg., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Trib,ory Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tribaffiry is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: stream has been relocated.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 2 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ? Sands [I Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Typetek cover.
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability f e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: ditchmi.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: none observed
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) How-
Tributary provides for. Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year 11-20
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and coufted. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test perfornied:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® 0~ (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
0 water staining ?
? other (list
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum lice 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 linedchanges in vegetation types.
(110 Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water color is clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
`A natural or nun-made dis dty 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 them is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's now
regime (eg., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
(1v) Biological C:haraderistim Channel supports (check all that aptly):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: At least one wetland exists along the stream.
? Habitat for.
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquaticiwildhk diversity. Explain findings:
2. Charades of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow dirKdy or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.06 saes
Wetland type. Explain: herbaceous floodplain wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain: fair.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: no.
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: No Flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Not presort
Characteristics: some standing water present.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-1W:
0 Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by beradbarrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 5.10 river miles froth TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 108 - 590-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (eg., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: water color was clear where present.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(ifi) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that any):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation typdpercent cover . Explain: Juncus eflusus, Carex sp., Veanoma sp., Polygonum sp., Eupatorium purpureum,
75% cover.
® Habitat far:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatichvildlife diversity . Explain findings: Area should support amphibian&
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
An wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately (0.06 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following.
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Y 0.06
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: The wetland serves as an overflow for
the stream. It holds floodwaters, slowing them down, and filters runoff before it enters Brushy Fmk. It also provides wetland
habitat.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow charms and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wets adjacent to the tributary to determine V they dgnt lc m* affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a ftd$cant [texas exists ff the tributary, in combination with all of Its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect an 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 proxhnnity to a TNW, and the fancdom performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely an any specific threshold of distance (eg. 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 b not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects an the TNW, as identified in the Ropwws 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 far 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 wedands and flows dhvctdy 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 findinngs 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 MD.
I Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not dh vcdy 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 WATERSIVVETLANDS 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 TNW&
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round arejurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: The channel is relocated and ranks as an intermittent channel on the DWQ stream form It possessed flow during
our site evaluation, but it lacked good stream morphology.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 221 linear feet 2 width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: 0.02 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: ditch feature (similar to cite in ]D form 2).
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or Indirectly We 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 (M.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlandsdirectly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally.,' Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section IlI.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: No barrier exists between the wetland and the channel.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area. 0.06 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 ibex TNW&
? 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 jarnai 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 CONEMRCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHEM ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complae the analysis refer to the key in Section IILDA of the lashuctional Guidebook.
10 Prior to awerft or declining CWA jarisdicfkm based solely on this category, Corp Districts will elevate the action to Corp and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the procew described in the Corp&WA Monewwrdom Rdganding CWAAdlarb&doa Fallowing Rapaiws.
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Watauga City: Boone
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.2412° N, Long. 81.7602° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 04 31 752 E 40 10 928 N
Name of nearest waterbody: Brushy Fork
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Watauga River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Watauga (06010103)
? 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 H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 414 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 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: +/- 500 linear feet: 6 width (ft) and/or 0.07 acres.
Wetlands: 0 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manuel
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: Areas did not meet criteria in 1987 delineation manual.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
a For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IH A.1 and Section M.D.l. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB 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 Rapanas have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), Le. 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 M.D.2. H the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
slop 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 HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IH.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
" Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? 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):
E] Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation linestchanges 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:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? 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-
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 typelpercent 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/1) 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 Nthe tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section HI.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Tributary is a named stream. It possesses flow year-round and good stream morphology.
? 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: +/- 500 linear feet 6 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:
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 1111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW&
? 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.'
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 ]NTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMN ERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):to
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdietron Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: wetland sketch.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicanttconsultant.
? 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 inch = 2000 feet, Valle Crucis.
U USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Watauga County Soil Survey.

National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
StatetLocal wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Watauga County GIS.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicabletsupporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The property owner is Ken Gottfried.