The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090065 Ver 1_401 Application_20090109 lUll ONI< (Ol\lI'AN) mulIlI_m_....'a 09-0065 January 15,2009 Ms. Cyndi Karoly North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Road Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Ms. Karoly: SPAID .. ~&@&UW&{; .JAN 2 0 I!!J . 2009 WErwR:f< - WATER ANoSTDRAfwA~~ Re: Request for 401 Water Quality Certification Guilford County, North Carolina 2008 Annexation Water and Sewer Projects - Hedrick Outfall City of Greensboro HDREngineering, Inc. of the. Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of our Client, the City of Greensboro (City), is requesting a NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification for an upcoming utility project. The project involves the annexation of water and sewer utility lines in Guilford County (Figure 1). The proposed alignments will impact approximately 27 linear feet of intermittent stream channel within the property boundary. Therefore, this project will be covered under Nationwide Permit 12 from the United States Army Corps on Engineers (USACE). Proiect Description The City operates and maintains public water and sewer systems that provide service to its residents. As the City continues to grow rapidly through populatioIl increases within current City limits and annexation of surrounding areas, providing these services to new residents remains an important priority. Residents of newly annexed areas of northwest Greensboro have recently petitioned to receive water and sanitary sewer service. As a result, the city has created projects to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the petitioners. The project involves the installation of approximately 5,700 linear feet of 12-inch, 8-inch, and 6-inch waterlines and approximately 3,900 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer lines to serve newly annexed residents in three separate areas of northwest .Greensboro. The projects will primarily be installed through open-cut methods, although boring and jacking installations with steel encasement pipes will be conducted in several,areas where appropriate. Alignments will fall within road rights-of-way and existing or proposed HDR Engineering. Inc. of the Carolinas 128 S TrYon Street Suite 1400 Charlotte. NC 28202-5004 Phone: (704) 338-6700 Fax: (704) 338-6760 wwN.hdrinc.com , .., easements as much as possible. The project will not alter existing grades within the property boundary. After a field review, jurisdictional waters were located within the proposed Hedrick Road annexation property boundary. The proposed alignment will affect approximately 27 linear feet of intermittent channel near the southeast comer of the property (Sheet 1, enclosed). Field Review On August 19,2008, HDR performed a field assessment of the study area to document jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that may occur within the proposed property boundary. The area was examined utilizing the jurisdIctional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was found in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast Region 2 (Reed, 1988). On-site data forms along with the updated Jurisdictional Determination Forms were completed for each wetland. Stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and DWQ guidance. Field Results Based on a review of published information and field investigations, HDR identified "waters of the U.S." as two jurisdictional wetlands/ponds (Wetlands A & B) and two jurisdictional stream channels or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW) (Streams 3 & 4) (Sheet 1, enclosed). Table 1.1 summarizes the field results. . Stream 3 Stream 4 Jurisdictional Waters Wetland A Wetland B =t- RPW!Perennial RPW /Intermittent Stream Total: Emergent Forested Wetland Total: 734.6 441.3 1,184.90 39,382.51 7,434.06 46,816.57 0.90 0.17 1.07 HDR Engineering,lnc. of the Carolinas Jurisdictional Waters Perennial Stream Stream 3 is an unnamed perennial tributary that flows directly into Lake Brandt, a Traditional Navigable Water (TWN). Channel dimensions include 10 to 12 foot bankfull widths and bank heights consisting of 4 to 5 feet. The riparian buffer consisted of forested hardwoods ranging from 25 feet to greater than 50 feet in width. This channel exhibited the crucial geomorphic, hydrologic, and biological indicators to receive a perennial classification and RPW status. Completion of the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form indicated a score of 55 out of a possible 100 and scored 37 out of possible 71 on the DWQ Stream Classification Form. Representative photographs of Stream 3 are included as Photographs 1 and 2. Intermittent Stream Stream 4 is an unnamed intermittent first order steam that flows into Stream 3 then onto Lake Brandt, a TNW. The stream channel was highly incised with steep, vertical banks upstream, becoming more stable downstream. The riparian buffer included some forested areas but was dominated by the herbaceous species present in the abutting wetland system (Wetland A). The channel exhibited moderate to weak geomorphic, hydrological, and biological indicators resulting in an intermittent classification. Completion of the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form indicated a score or 55 out of a possible 100 and scored 29 out of possible 71 on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form. Representative photographs of Stream 4 are included as Photographs 3 and 4. Wetlands Wetland A is an emergent wetland located at the Hedrick Road Annexation. This wetland is jurisdictional because it abuts "an intermittent but not seasonal" RPW (Stream 4) that has a significant nexus with a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) downstream. Vegetation was dominated by herbaceous species consisting of tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), lady's thumb (Polygonum persicaria), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens). Woody species present were located on the outer edges of this emergent wetland and consisted of black willows (Salix nigra) and alders (Alnus serrulata). Hydrology indicators included inundation, saturation within the upper 12 inches and drainage patterns in the wetlands. In some areas, up to 12 inches of standing water was present. Soils were saturated silty clay loams and exhibited low chroma colors (lOYR 3/1, 2.5Y 4/1) within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. This wetland appears to have been an open water pond that has been drained and is currently functioning as an emergent wetland. Representative photographs of Wetland A are included as Photographs 5 and 6. HDR Engineering,lnc. of the Carolinas Wetland B is a jurisdictional forested wetland adjacent to a perennial RWP (Stream 3). Vegetation consisted of red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), false nettle, arrow arum, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Hydrology indicators included inundation and saturation within the upper 12 inches. Soils were saturated sandy clay loams and exhibited low chroma colors (10YR 4/1, 10YR 3/1) within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Representative photographs of Wetland B are included as Photographs 7 and 8. Wetlands A and B exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and indicators of wetland hydrology An Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form and Wetland Determination Datasheet were completed for each and are attached. A request for Jurisdictional Determination of the onsite waters of the US to the USACE was submitted on January 2, 2009. We are hereby requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from DWQ for the proposed utility projects. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please contact me at (704) 973-6878 to schedule a site visit or if you have any questions after your review of the enclosed information Respectfully, ~~ Eric Mularski Environmental Scientist Enclosures Section 401 Pre-Construction Notification Form Agent Authorization Letter Figure t. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Lake Brandt and Summerfield USGS Quadrangles Figure 3. NWI Wetlands and NRCS Soils Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Wetlands A and B) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms (Streams 3 & 4) DWQ Stream Identification Forms (Streams 3 & 4) Field Photographs City of Greensboro, Standard Temporary Creek Crossing Detail Wetland Delineation Map - Hedrick Dr Sewer Outfall (Sheet 1 of 1) Hedrick Dr Sewer Outfall (Sheet 2 of2) HDR Engineering.lnc. oflhe Carolinas 1m &'~x- WA II2'90c. ~ f: > - _ -i o ~ ~ '<< .'. .,;: p"p' OJ .S (~~, ;.;; " .' ~~ '''.-' .~I: JAN 2 0 /)j} 0 9 09-0065 Office Use Only: Corps action ID no. DWQ project no. Form Version 1.3 Dec 102008 tlENR . '/VA I tf< -.luAU I ~ '~AND STORMWAlER BAANCH Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information (NPAlm .,"..\ . 1. Processing -,.r ..... 1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the D Section 404 Permit D Section 10 Permit Corps: 1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: MW \ Z or General Permit (GP) number: 1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? DYes DNo 1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply): ~ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular D Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit D 401 Water Quality Certification - Express D Riparian Buffer Authorization 1e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit: because written approval is not required? Certification: DYes ~No ~Yes DNo H. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation DYes ~No of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. 1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h DYes ~No below. 1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? DYes ~No 2. Project Information 2a. Name of project: Hedrick Outfall 2b. County: Guilford 2c. Nearest municipality I town: Greensboro, NC 2d. Subdivision name: Stonehaven 2e. NCDOT only, T.IP. or state project no: 3. Owner Information 3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Stonehaven Homeowners Association of NC, Inc, COG Pending Easement 3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Book 5035, Page 612 3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): 3d. Street address: 4022 Stone Bluff Court 3e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27401 3f. Telephone no.: 3g. Fax no.: 3h. Email address: Page 1 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10,2008 Version 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a. Applicant is: o Agent ~ Other, specify: City of Greensboro 4b. Name: Bruce Overman 4c. Business name City of Greensboro, Engineering Division (if applicable): 4d. Street address: 300 W. Washington Street 4e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27401 4f. Telephone no.: 336-373-4313 4g. Fax no.: 4h. Email address: Bruce. overman@cityofgreensboro-nc.gov 5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a. Name: Eric Mularski 5b. Business name HDR Engineering of the Carolinas (if applicable): 5c. Street address: 128 S Tryon Street, Suite 1400 5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202-5004 5e. Telephone no.: 704-973-6878 5f. Fax no.: 704-338-6760 5g. Email address: eric. mularski@hdrinc.com Page 2 of 11 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parceIID): #00-01-0033-J-0856-00-300 1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.151 Longitude: - 79.882 (DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD) 1c. Property size: 12.33 acres 2. Surface Waters 2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT to Lake Brandt proposed project: 2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Lake Brandt is classified as WS-III NSW CA 2c. River basin: Cape Fear 3. Project Description 3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: The general land use of the proposed project area is residential and forested land. 3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: Approximately 1.07 acres 3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: Approximately 1,185 LF 3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The City operates and maintains public water and sewer systems that provide service to its residents. As the City continues to grow rapidly through population increases within current City limits and annexation of surrounding areas, providing these services to new residents remains an important priority. Residents of newly annexed areas of northwest Greensboro have recently petitioned to receive water and sanitary sewer service. As a result, the city has created projects to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the petitioners. 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project involves the installation of approximately 5,700 LF of 12-inch, 8-inch, and 6-inch waterlines and approximately 3,900 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer lines to serve newly annexed residents in three separate areas of northwest Greensboro. The projects will primarily be installed through open-cut methods, although boring and jacking installations with steel encasement pipes will be conducted in several areas where appropriate. Alignments will fall within road rights-of-way and existing or proposed easements as much as possible. The project will not alter existing grades within the project area. 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / [gJ Yes ONo o Unknown project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments: 4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type o Preliminary 0 Final of determination was made? 4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Name (if known): Other: HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas 4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. Submitted on January 2, 2009 5. Project History 5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for o Yes [gJ No o Unknown this project (including all prior phases) in the past? 5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions. Page 3 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version B. Project Information and Prior Project History 6. Future Project Plans 6a. Is this a phased project? I DYes ~No 6b. If yes, explain. Page 4 of 11 C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply): D Wetlands r8J Streams - tributaries D Buffers D Open Waters D Pond Construction 2. Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted. 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404,10 Area of impact Permanent (P) or (if known) OWQ - non-404, other) (acres) Temoorarv (T) W1 D pDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ W2 DpDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ W3 D pDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ W4 D pDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ W5 D pDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ W6 DpDT DYes D Corps DNo DOWQ 2g. Total wetland impacts 2h. Comments: 3. Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g. Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length Permanent (P) or intermittent OWQ - non-404, width (linear Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet) S1 r8JpDT Excavation/Backfill UT to Brandt DPER r8J Corps 8 feet 27 feet Lake r8J INT r8J OWQ S2 DpDT DPER D Corps DINT DOWQ S3 D pDT DPER D Corps DINT DOWQ S4 DpDT DPER D Corps DINT DOWQ S5 D pDT DPER D Corps DINT DOWQ S6 D pDT DPER D Corps DINT DOWQ 3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 27 feet 3i. Comments: Page 5 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 Oecember 10, 2008 Version 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below. 4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e. Open water Name of waterbody impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Temporarv IT) 01 D pDT 02 D pDT 03 D pDT 04 D pDT 4f. Total open water impacts 4g. Comments: 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland PondlD Proposed use or purpose of (acres) number pond Floode d Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 5f. Total 5g. Comments: 5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? DYes DNo If yes, permit ID no: 5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 5k. Method of construction: 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below. If any impacts require mitiaation, then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form. 6a. D Neuse D Tar-Pamlico D Other: Project is in which protected basin? D Catawba D Randleman 6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g. Buffer impact number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Temporary (T) imoact required? B1 DpDT DYes DNo B2 DpDT DYes DNo B3 D pDT DYes DNo 6h. Total buffer impacts 6i. Comments: Page 6 of 11 D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project. The utility line crossing was aligned to all practical measures to avoid major impacts to the waters of the U.S. Although the crossing of the intermittent stream channel will be at an angle less than 750, this alignment was selected in order to both avoid impacting the wetlands and honor the City's 30-ft stream buffer. This approach was discussed with Steve Tedder at the NCDWQ regional office on December 18, 2008. 1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques. Construction techniques to avoid or minimized the proposed impacts may include but are not limited to installing silt fence, check dams, and sediment traps. These measures are further described in the City of Greensboro's Standard Temporary Creek Crossing detail (see attached). 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for DYes [8J No impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? 2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): D DWQ D Corps D Mitigation bank 2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this D Payment to in-lieu fee program project? D Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: 3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type I Quantity 3c. Comments: 4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program 4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. DYes 4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet 4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: D warm Dcool Dcold 4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet 4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres 4h. Comments: 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan. Page 7 of 11 peN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ 6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires DYes DNo buffer mitigation? 6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the amount of mitigation required. 6c. 6d. 6e. Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1.5 6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank, permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund). 6h. Comments: Page 8 of 11 E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1. Diffuse Flow Plan 1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified DYes ~No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? 1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why. DYes DNo Comments: 2. Stormwater ManaQement Plan 2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0% 2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? DYes ~No 2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: 2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan: o Certified Local Government 2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? o DWQ Stormwater Program o DWQ 401 Unit 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? o Phase II 3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs DNSW o USMP apply (check all that apply): o Water Supply Watershed o Other: 3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been DYes DNo attached? 4. DWQ Stormwater ProQram Review 0 Coastal counties 0 HQW 4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply 0 ORW (check all that apply): 0 Session Law 2006-246 0 Other: 4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been DYes DNo attached? 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? DYes DNo 5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? DYes DNo Page 9 of 11 peN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version F. Supplementary Information 1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) 1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ~Yes DNo use of public (federal/state) land? 1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State DYes ~No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAlSEPA)? 1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval DYes DNo letter.) Comments: 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, DYes ~No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? 2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? DYes ~No 2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): 3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in DYes ~No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description. 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. Page 10 of 11 PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or DYes ~No habitat? 5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ~Yes DNo impacts? ~ Raleigh 5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. D Asheville 5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? DYes ~No 6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation DYes ~No status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 1 DO-year floodplain? DYes ~No 8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: 8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Eric Mularski ~ ~~=- t\ \7S~~\ Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/ Agent's Signature Date (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) Page 11 of 11 City of Greensboro North Carolina Agent Authorization I, Mr. Bruce Overman, representing the City of Greensboro, hereby certify that I have authorized Eric Mularski, representing HDR Engineering, Inc., to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary (subject to final approval by the City of Greensboro) to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of the Section 404/401 Nationwide Permit associated with the 2008 Annexation Water and Sewer Projects - Part III (City of Greensboro Contract # 2008059A) in Guilford County, North Carolina and any and all standard and special conditions attached. We hereby certify that the information submitted is true and accurate to the best of our knowledge. Bruce Overman Applicant's name Eric Mularski Agent's name /~~ iZ.,~ Applicant's signature Lk/1~ ~ Agent's Signature /2- I- - 6/8 Date l~ \d.'\~ Date 640 P.O. Box :n86 . Greensboro, NC 27402-:1136 . www.greensboro-nc.gov . (3:~6) 378-CITY (2489) . TTY# 333-6930 HR ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions. Project Vicinity Figure 1 City of Greensboro I Hedrick Outfall I 401 Water Quality Certification and Request for Jurisdictional Determination Feet 4,000 ~ tR~PANY I Many Solutions- b I Hedrick Outfall I 401 Certification and Request for Jurisdictional Determination City of Greens ora Legend CProperty Boundary Soils D McC2 - Madison clay loam, 6 to 10% slopes D McD2 - Madison clay loam, 10 to 15% slopes ~ W-Waler r::::J Wh -Wehadkee sill loam , .. .. .... '. ~ -~:..... ...' ~ A- .' ,t' ...., 125 250 Feet 500 Hl~ ONE COMPANY I MallY So/utiollS" NRCS Soils Figure 3 City of Greensboro I Hedrick Outfall I 401 Water Quality Certification and Request for Jurisdictional Determination DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Hedrick Outfall Date: 08/19/08 Applicant/Owner: City of Greensboro County: Guilford I nvestigator( s): Eric Mularski State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WA (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Polygonum sagittatum herb 08L 9 2 Boehmeria cylindrica herb FACW+ 10 3 Polygonum persicaria herb FACW 11 4 Peltandra virginica herb 08L 12 5 Impatiens capensis herb FACW 13 6 Salix nigra shrub 08L 14 7 Alnus serrulata shrub FACW+ 15 8 16 Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL, FACW or FAC 100% Remarks: Emerl!ent wetland species are dominant HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: - - Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs X Inundated - - Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X - - No Recorded Data Available X Water Marks - Drift Lines - Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves) - X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 6 - Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): - Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) Water-Stained Leaves - - Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test - Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Hvdrolol!V indicators are present Wetland A & S Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of2 1/15/2009 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Madison c1av loam Drainage Class well drained Field Observations axonomy (Subgroup): thermic Tvnic Kanhaoludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes~ Profile Descriotion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-2 0 10YR311 2-8 A 2.5Y 611 sandy clay 8-15+ A 10YR 4/1 silty clay loam Histosol Concretions - - - Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils - - - Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions) - Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) - - Remarks: Indicators of hvdric soil are nresent. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? etland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: No (Circle) ~ ~~ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Emere:ent wetland that is located in the floodplain of an intermittent RPW. Approved by HQUSACE 2/92 Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of2 1/15/2009 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Hedrick Outfall Date: 08/19/08 Applicant/Owner: City of Greensboro County: Guilford I nvestigator( s): Eric Mularski State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WB (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1 Acer rubrum tree FAC 9 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica tree FACW 10 3 Boehmeria cylindrica herb FACW+ 11 4 Peltandra virginica herb OBL 12 5 Toxicodendron radicans vme FAC 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100% Remarks: More than 50% of the dominant plant species present are F AC or wetter. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: f-- - Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs X Inundated - - Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches - - X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks - Drift Lines - Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves) - X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 0 - Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): - Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: 5 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves - - Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test - Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Indicators of wetland hvdrolo!!v are present. Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of2 1/15/2009 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee silt loam Drainage Class Doorlv drained Field Observations ~axonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluvalluentic Endoalluents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Descrintion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-2 0 10YR 4/1 2-12+ A 10YR3/2 silty clay loam Histosol Concretions - - Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils - Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils - - Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions) - Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List - X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) - - Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils are Dresent. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? etland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: No (Circle) ~ ~~ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Forested wetland Approved by HQUSACE 2/92 Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of2 1/15/2009 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ProjecUSite: Hedrick Outfall Date: 08/19/08 ApplicanUOwner: City of Greensboro County: Guilford I nvestigator( s): Eric Mularski State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: unland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: UPl (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator 1 Juniperus virginiana shrub FACU- 9 2 Quercus rubra tree FAC 10 3 Elaeagnus angustifolia shrub FAC 11 4 Liquidambar styraciflua tree FAC+ 12 5 13 6 14 7 15 8 16 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 50% Remarks: Upland plant species are dominant. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: - - Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs Inundated - - Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X - - No Recorded Data Available Water Marks - Drift Lines - Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves) - - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): - Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves - - Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test - Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: No indicators of wetland hvdroloev are present. Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 1 of2 1/15/2009 SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Madison c1av loam Drainage Class well darined Field Observations axonomy (Subgroup): thermic Tvnic Kanhanludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes(N0 Profile Descriotion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-3 A 10YR 4/5 N/A N/A silty clay loam 3-12+ A 10YR 4/4 N/A N/A silty clay loam Histosol Concretions - - Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils - Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils - - Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions) - Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List - Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) - - Remarks: No indicators of hvdric soils are present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? etland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: No (Circle) Yes Yes Yes (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area for Wetlands A & B. Approved by HQUSACE 2/92 Wetland A & B Routine On-Site Data Forms.xls Page 2 of2 1/15/2009 ,. t APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV ofthe 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: Hedrick Outfall- Stream 3 Wetland B State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Guiford Greensboro Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.1520 Long. -79.880 Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lake Brandt Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Cape Fear - 03030002 I'J Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. II Check if other sites (e.g., off site 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): I'J Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August 2008 I'J Field Determination. Date(s): 8/19/2008 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There "navigable waters of the Us." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow ofthe 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 "waters of the Us." within Clean Water Act (CW A) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs. including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs 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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 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: I Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). ] Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. \ SECTION III: CW A ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; ifthe aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.l and 2 and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EP A 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 water body has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.l for the tributary, Section 1I1.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non- TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: 7 Drainage area: 110 Average annual rainfall: 43 inches Average annual snowfall: 8 inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: o Tributary flows directly into TNW. o Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are river miles from TNW. Project waters are river miles from RPW. Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed tributary flows directly into Lake Brandt. Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st. ~ Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional infonnation regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid 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. r " (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that applv): Tributary is: t8l Natural o Artificial (man-made). Explain: o Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: 12 feet Average depth: 4 feet Average side slopes: Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): t8l Silts t8l Sands t8l Cobbles 0 Gravel o Bedrock 0 Vegetation. Type/% cover: o Other. Explain: Rip Rap. o Concrete o Muck Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Pr~sence of run/rift1eLt>........2.0........~..?....}....~.~;~~;!;7xes. Explain: some present. Tnbutary geometry: B:e@lil_ Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 % Explain: highly eroding. (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: _111I Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: perennial. Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: o Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): t8l Bed and banks t8l OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): o clear, natural line impressed on the bank 0 the presence of litter and debris o changes in the character of soil t8l destruction of terrestrial vegetation t8l shelving t8l the presence of wrack line t8l vegetation matted down, bent, or absent t8l sediment sorting o leaf litter disturbed or washed away 0 scour t8l sediment deposition 0 multiple observed or predicted flow events t8l water staining 0 abrupt change in plant community o other (list): o Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CW A jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by: o oil or scum line along shore objects 0 survey to available datum; o fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) 0 physical markings; o physical markings/characteristics 0 vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. o tidal gauges o other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: water is clear, residental and forested areas surround this watershed. Identity 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): IZI Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): 25->50 feet. D Wetland fringe. Characteristics: IZI Habitat for: D Federally Listed species. Explain findings: D Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . D Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: IZI 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: forested. Wetland quality. Explain:fair. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) Gener.al. ~"!i~~;i;elat~;~~. with N?~-TNW: Flow Is.l!l.j~h....j;' Explam. . Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: D Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW: D Directly abutting IZI Not directly abutting IZI Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: connected by small ephemeral channel and located in Stream 3 active floodplain. D Ecological connection. Explain: D Separated by bermlbarrier. Explain: (d) 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, ifknown: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): IZI Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):> 50 feet. D Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: IZI Habitat for: IZI Federally Listed species. Explain findings: D Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: D Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: IZI Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if a~y) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: I Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. , For each wetland, specify the following: Directlv abuts? (Y IN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y IN) 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 ofthe 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 food webs? . Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integritr 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: Hydrological and biologically connections via emphemeral channel with a perennial unnamed tributary are apparent. D. DETERMINA TIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT W A TERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. iii Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Our site visit indicated that the channel exhibited the crucial hydrological, geomorphic, and biological indicators to receive at least a perrenial classification. Tributaries ofTNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: , Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.e. 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. II Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section 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. II 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.e. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. II 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.e. 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-ST A TEl WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLA TED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: 'See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 1II.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category. Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. t' Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THA T 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. o Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solelv 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, ifnot covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (Le., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): !1lI Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). . Lakes/ponds: acres. II 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): 1.1 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: 1.1 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf ofthe applicant/consultant. o Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. o 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: o USGS NHD data. o USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. 1.1 U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Summerfield 24K Quadrangle. 1.1 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Guilford County. _.1.1.....;.....:' National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data. a State/Local wetland inventory map(s): II FEMA/FIRM maps: II I DO-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) 1.1 Photographs: ~ Aerial (Name & Date):Guilford County Ortho Imagery. or ~ Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation. Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify):Field delineation. B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: .. APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Hedrick Outfall- Stream 4 Wetland A State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Guiford Greensboro Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36. I 51 0 Long. -79.8810.... Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lake Brandt Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Cape Fear - 03030002 II 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 EV ALUA TION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): . Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August 2008 II Field Determination. Date(s): 8/19/2008 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There "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. CW A SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CW A) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters ofthe U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs 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: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 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: I Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). J Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. ~ SECTION III: CW A ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.l and Section III.D.l. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.l and 2 and Section III.D.l.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. Ifthe aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.DA. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EP A 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 oflaw. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine ifthe waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.l for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non- TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Drainage area: Average annual rainfall: Average annual snowfall: inches inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: o Tributary flows directly into TNW. o Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are river miles from TNW. Project waters are river miles from RPW. Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are 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 arid 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: 0 Natural o Artificial (man-made). Explain: o Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: ......f~~! Average side slopes: _. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): o Silts 0 Sands o Cobbles 0 Gravel o Bedrock 0 Vegetation. Type/% cover: o Other. Explain: Rip Rap. o Concrete o Muck Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Presence of run/rift1e.~.Fg~l...~~,:nplexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: 11I:.1. Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % Explain: (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: 11I111I Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: o Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): o Bed and banks o OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): o clear, natural line impressed on the bank 0 the presence of litter and debris o changes in the character of soil 0 destruction of terrestrial vegetation o shelving 0 the presence of wrack line o vegetation matted down, bent, or absent 0 sediment sorting o leaf litter disturbed or washed away 0 scour o sediment deposition 0 multiple observed or predicted flow events o water staining 0 abrupt change in plant community o other (list): o Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CW A jurisdiction (check all that apply): . High Tide Line indicated by: . Mean High Water Mark indicated by: o oil or scum line along shore objects 0 survey to available datum; o fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) 0 physical markings; o physical markings/characteristics 0 vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. o tidal gauges o 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, ifknown: 6 A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. ~ (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): D Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): f. D Wetland fringe. Characteristics: D Habitat for: D Federally Listed species. Explain findings: D Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . D Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: D 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 F!~;~..~;I.~tionship with Non- TNW: Flow is: .Ix.. Explain: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: D Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW: D Directly abutting D Not directly abutting D Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: D Ecological connection. Explain: D Separated by bermlbarrier. Explain: (d) 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): D Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): D Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: D Habitat for: D Federally Listed species. Explain findings: D Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: D Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: D Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directlv abuts? (Y IN) Size (in acres) Directlv abuts? (Y IN) 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 ofa 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 food webs? . Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. II Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: ~ Tributaries ofTNW 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: Our site visit indicated that the channel exhibited the crucial hydrological, geomorphic, and biological indicators to receive at least a intermittent classification. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. II 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 IlI.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. III 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 IlI.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: III Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section IlI.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands and perennial stream channel are biologically and hydrologically connected. 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. II 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-ST A TEl WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLA TED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLy):lo which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: 'See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CW A jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the CorpslEPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. IdentitY type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): III 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. o Prior to the Ian 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): III Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). III Lakes/ponds: acres. II Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: II 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): II Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: II Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. D Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. D 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: D USGS NHD data. D USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Summerfield 24K Quadrangle. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Guilford County. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data. State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMAlFIRM maps: 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ~ Aerial (Name & Date):Guilford County Ortho Imagery. or ~ Other (Name & Date): Site photos taken during delineation. Previous detennination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other infonnation (please specify):Field delineation. B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: USACE AID# DWQ# Site # Stream 3 (indicate on attached m STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro 3. Date of Evaluation: 8/1912008 5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary - Stream 3 7. Approximate Drainage Area: 110 acres 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 AM 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 8. Stream Order: 1st 9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 10. County: Guilford 11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any): Carson Farms Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 36.123 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -79.899 Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS ~ Field survey 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifYing stream(s) location): Located in the Carson Farms subdivision adiacent to the Greensboro County Club east of Hedrick Road. in Greensboro. NC (Figure 2. attached) 14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): 15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny. low 900s 16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny. high 800s 17. IdentifY any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat _Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q If yes, estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?@ NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? @NO 21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: ~% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural -..2L% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( ) 22. Bankfull Width: 10-12' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) LGentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%) 25. Channel Sinuosity: _Straight -X..Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality. Total Score (from reverse): 55 Comments: Upstream the channel is deeplv incised near headcut. Channel becomes more stable as vou continue downstream with lower bank heil!hts and floodplain access ~uC Evaluator'sSignature ~ -- . J:.~- Date 8119/08 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Stream B * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 USACE AID# DWQ# Site # Stream 4 (indicate on attached f6!]] STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro 3. Date of Evaluation: 8/19/2008 5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary - Stream 4 7. Approximate Drainage Area: 110 acres 9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 AM 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 8. Stream Order: 1st 10. County: Guilford 12. Subdivision name (if any): Carson Farms Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 36.151 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -79.882 Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS @JField survey 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifYing stream(s) location): Located in the Carson Farms subdivision adiacent to the Greensboro County Club east of Hedrick Road. in Greensboro. NC (Figure 2. attached). 14. Proposed Channel Work (if any): 15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny. low 900s 16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny. high 800s 17. IdentifY any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat _Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q If yes, estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? @ NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? @ NO 21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: -.1!L % Residential _ % Commercial _ % Industrial _ % Agricultural ~% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( 22. Bankfull Width: 4-6' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 6-8' 24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) X-Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%) 25. Channel Sinuosity: _Straight ----1LOccasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality. Total Score (from reverse): 54 Comments: Upstream the channel is deeplv incised near headcut. Channel becomes more stable as you continue downstream. Flows throu2h old pond which has been drained and currentlv functions as an eme<2ent wetland ,v,tem~ J;., Evalnator', s;gnatnr:=riUP _ oul - ---'L Date 8119/08 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this, form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Stream B * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 08/19/2008 Project: Hedrick Outfall Latitude: 36.152 Evaluator:Eric Mularski Site: Stream 3 Longitude: -79.88 Total Points: Other Summerfield Stream is at least intermittent 37.00 County: e.g. Quad Name: if> 19 or perennial if? 30 Guilford A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 18.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 18. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3 5. Active/relic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3 7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3 9 8 Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3 11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existinQ USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 Yes = 3 evidence. "Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7.5 14. Groundwater floVv1discharge 2.0 0 1 2 3 15. Water in channel and> 48 hrs since rain, .2!: 0 1 2 3 Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3.0 16. leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphicfeatures) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 C. Biology (Subtotal = 11.00 20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0 21b Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 o.s 1 15 23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 24. Fish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2gb. Wetland plants in streambed 0.50 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBl = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 0, Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch: Deeply incised channel upstream becoming more stable dow North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 08/19/2008 Project: Hedrick Outfall Latitude: 36.151 Evaluator:Eric Mularski Site: Stream 4 Longitude: -79.882 Total Points: Other Summerfield Stream is at least intermittent 29.00 County: e.g. Quad Name: jf> 19 or Derennial if:? 30 Guilford A. GeomorpholoQY (Subtotal = 14.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3 5. Active/relic floodplain 3.0 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3 7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3 9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3 11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existina USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 Yes = 3 evidence. A Man-made dITches are not rated: see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.0 14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3 15. Water in channel and> 48 hrs since rain, .Q! 0 1 2 3 Water in channel-- dry or growina season 3.0 16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 C Biology (Subtotal = 9.00 20b Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0 21b. Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 24. Fish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 29b. Wetland plants in streambed 0.50 FAC - 0.5; FACW= 0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 o. Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch: Deeply incised channel upstream becoming more stable dow -l H1~ ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions'" Site Photographs City of Greensboro Hedrick Outfall 40 t Water Qualit Celtilication & JUlisdictional Detcnnination li1,- ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions" Site Photographs Celtitication & Jurisdictional Detennination lil~ ONE COMPANY I Many So'utions~ Site Photographs Cit of Greensboro I Hedrick Out till I 40 I Water Quality Cel1itication & JUlisdictional Determination Iil~ ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions'" Site Photographs City of Greensboro 2008 AIlIl\:xatioll Water and Sewer Pro 'eets 40 I Water Qualit Certilieation & JUlisdictional Dewnnination '" o o N ., U o .... TEMP. CONSTRUCTION STREAM CROSSING III -' .... LL -' <( ~ S o * FLOW -- 10' X 10' SEDIMENT TRAP E1 2: 1 SIDE SLOPE OR SIL T BAG. 12~ ~ ------- MIN.I t A ~iS ~r;: PROPOSED EARTH BERM (TYP. ) CROSSING PI~ 20' -I 50' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (SEE NOTE 5) . .. ~' MIN -- ------ 2' CLASS "A" EROSION CONTROL STONE IfEIR 10' X 10' DEIfA TERING BASIN E1 2: 1 SIDE SLOPE OR SIL T BAG. PLAN o t. 12' MIN TOP OF / -~-~ --BANKi-----~-. TEMP. 24" TO 42. CWCfWlr:fll:-!ifflf:lfI11 .-::' '.'. ..-.' '':,''. ,-,.., ..'. : ::.>':::,,:..:: ~...:..<::.J..~!,~;;":.,::-:--:~,...:.:..:.::--:...:>..:;..;_'. ~>',,:':'-":.-" >.'." . . . . EX INV. ./ TEMPORARY . S TONE DAM CREEK POL YETHYLENE FABRIC f\ ON FACE (BML. THICK) ~ CROSSING PIPE *- ....... "- '\ '" ;;: '" o u ..- '" o o N ... D- III II) II) III ... <( A INSTALL SANDBAGS IN PIPE INVERT & FABRIC WHILE PUMPING AROUND DURING CONSTRUCTION IN STREAM. S REMOVE SANDBAGS & FABRIC TO ALLOW FLOW THROUGH PIPE WHEN NOT PUMPING AROUND. SECTION A-A 1 OF 2 c I T y o F GREENSBO STD. NO. 213 RO REV. 01-91 06-05 03-9709-05 n':/-n&:l c: .. ~ u X III ..- STANDARD TENPORARY CREEK CROSSING DURING CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ N to o U ..- '" o o N ... a. III II) II) III ... <( o a. ::> ..- II) III ;:l LL to Z .... " a: o " ..- OJ '" t. .. '" c: .. ., II) ..- ~ c: .. ~ U x III ..- '" o o N ., U o .... III ;:l LL -' <( ... .... S o * NO TES: 1) EROSION STONE TO BE "CLASS I" RIP-RAP UNLESS DESIGNA TED DIFFERENTL Y ON CONSTRUCTION PLAN. 2) PIPE SIZE AND AMOUNT NEEDED TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER ON CONSTRUCTION PLAN. 3) TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING TO BE CONVERTED TO COG #214 UPON PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION IF CALLED FOR ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. 4) PUMP AND LINE SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR USING THE BASE FLOW SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. 5) WIDTH OF CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE MINIMIZED BASED UPON FIELD CONDITIONS. ANY DISTURBANCE (S) EXCEEDING 40' MA Y REQUIRE ADDITIONAL WA TER QUALITY PERMITTING OR MITIGA TION. CONSTRUCTION SE(}UENCE FOR STREAM CROSSING 1) INSTALL PUMP AND LINE TO PUMP FLOW FROM AREA UPSTREAM OF TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING TO AREA DOWNSTREAM OF CONSTRUCTION AREA. BEGIN PUMPING AND CONTINUING PUMPING WHILE WORKING WITHIN THE STREAM. 2) INSTALL UPSTREAM DAM. FIL TER FABRIC, AND TEMPORARY CMP. COVER PIPE INLET WITH FABRIC AND SAND BAGS AS SHOWN IN INSET "A" WHILE WORKING IN THE STREAM. ALLOW STREAM FLOW THROUGH CMP AS SHOWN IN INSET "B" WHEN NOT WORKING WITHIN THE STREAM. 3) INSTALL DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY STONE DAM AND FIL TER FABRIC TO PREVENT BACK FLOW INTO CONSTRUCTION AREA. 4) INSTALL PROPOSED EARTH BERMS ALONG TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. 5) INSTALL DEWA TERING BASIN OR SIL T BAG A T TOP OF BANK. DEWA TER CONSTRUCTION AREA BETWEEN TEMPORARY DAM USING THIS BASIN. 6) INSTALL THE 10' X 10' SEDIMENT TRAP OR SIL T BAG. 7) UPON CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION, REMOVE TEMPORARY DAMS, FIL TER FABRIC, AND TEMPORARY CMP. DEPRESS TEMPORARY DAM BOTTOMS INTO STREAM BED UNTIL TOP OF RIP RAP IS LEVEL WITH STREAM BOTTOM. CONVERT TO COG STANDARD #214 IF CALLED FOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. B) UPON STABILIZA TION OF CLEARED AREAS, REMOVE TEMPORARY EARTH BERM. SEDIMENT TRAP. AND DEWA TERING BASIN. 2 OF 2 c I T y o F GREENSBO STD. NO. 213 RO REV. 01-9106-05 03-9709-05 n ':/-n&i STANDARD TENPORARY CREEK CROSSING DURING CONSTRUCTION . ~, Ul t; ~ ~, 8 i 11111 I I i lai ~ I I I;i ~ ! I I II il ; Gill i i I ~ ~ ~ .,',......."I~ ~I ~ ~ ~ !l! ~,~. ~"~ ~~il'~ ~i ~~~) ...f>~~ ......... <<!fA..~ ~~ I ~ "'~ iI ~.. 1:10... ~ ~1: iil ~ 11~ \"f(). \ ~ilE .~iir1~ ~.I~1 ~f~i~~ II!! ~l ~lll!l ~ I ~ i a .~, (/)', 0: >< E I~'" ~~~ ~lt ~ S .~ _ ~. ~ ... iil~: ~e~b;~'I!~ fi \\ e,4'd l.t:.~~~~l Ii!'~ ~m~~ a;~~,,,,, ~ ~ OA. ........ ~... ~,,, III I~ ~iLi:1 ~ iii ~".... "" ~.! I! ~~I~~:t I lll'"U"""" ~d!~~ lii~~~li .. i Ilr 8~ ~~i!ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~l~ ~i~~I~~~ - 't, {( ~~!/ l/;: l,i\1 ~. 7 I' I liS " ~ · j . ~ f i~ I $$ J" lrjJll \~ ~ j . '\ 'B ...~ "'0' '\ '~..E ,~ I I r; I II III I II /1 II I I I '~l I / , '~ ~ ( ,f~~"/"~ / / ~~)/ft.// [I if ~~ \/~ ,A, I~ I, ~ / /' rc ."i ~.d: 7J!/. /// "" :/' /" ~ ~ eo< "/ /" / " " "" I I ~'x/ / I \~. ~,~ ,,' >6>~~ / / II. '" '<\\A . \ ", X \ '\ \ . '\ , , ?,':'- ---~-- \! . I " I I " I. '. ro ~& I~ ~ Ii'" ~../(:.-: ,,--" j/ n _ / I . \\\. . . BU"," I I'" ~ /;' .. ~J. .:. . · . ) -I I ,.1 ~I ~II · 'Illl" (-I li~h I " . . · ill .. .I \ I It" [ J ,/ .:- IJ I; .:- I \ .. -I ., i'''Jb ,,/ -: -:/~LlJ~( -: .; ~ \ _: :- \~ . :-~i: -: ... /l ) _: : ~ '\ \,\ $ . go / I I... -1t rpl~ lit I I ~ ~~I tf;;? '~. SH ~ ~ 5 @j ~ Itl {!tj ~ #t; ~~1 I IIHinnninn ~ I ~ ~Eu;~i~~!~~~ .lliHinnnln~ c; ~~~~~~ 2i';'I~~~i 1- Iii! ~. ~j;jlijO! 1111!i!ei.r ll~! ! ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ ~ I III III o 0 -- z o ~ ::) ~ ~ ~ ~ m 8 ft ; II ; ; I ; 1IIIIIIiiliiiiiiiiiili .... -... ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lO!~~~~!~l1l~o;~~~~ '~~06~;! ~ ~ ~ ai i i i ~ i ~ ~ i I i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ Ill... ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ..... .... ... - ~ ~-~ co -~~iB~~!~i~~i ~ I ~. ~. i II n u ! , n n H q q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lil~:il~~~~~IiiIiiIiiIii~..1ii ~ Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii ffi ~Cll"lil~11l6~~ i co '" .. ~ ~ :'! ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ i~~~.~::t....____ ~ ~ - ~ - III III o 0 0:: o C ~! ~ z o 5 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ [5 ~ ~ u ~ ~ z - ~ ~ E !l l!l ~ ~ e ~ l!l ~ ; it) ~ z Iii.. Vi en o 0:: . ~'i ~ ~ -I-- z o ~ ::) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill I I I I ~ B b~ ~~! ~~~h€~ ~1!5!.:t~~ ~i~a:f~s ;i~;; ~d 1!51!5~~I!5~I~ ~I;il~il ""~chl~ ~1!5~k1~~~~ n;~~~~i I ~ ~ ~d~i~~~ g ~II ... l!5 1.l:J I ~ ili ~ ..:l ~ o ~ ~ ..:If;;l f;;lcn Q~ Q~ ~~ ~~ <( .... '" ~ ~ I )- >- )... ~ a.mCDmv> I~ g - ... I~ >- 0 '" .~ z - a: ~ d @ ..lil .. z i'5 ~ ~ ~ ~~8o&l Vl :.: a:: .. ::ll i5 ~ . . . . II> It! '" ~ ~ '" . . . . ~ F " ::> 0 .. I- -' 5 II> . . . . I Vl .. g u .. . . . . f!: ~ u ... u .. f!: .. . . ~ u UJ >- :s ~~~~~ ~ lJj ~ ~ (f) z o Vi :> w a::