20180931 Ver 1_Delineation Memo & PJD_20180703

G:\PROJECT\Greensboro NC\Western Trail - Stormwater\PM\from Ron Johnson\Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation
Memo_2018_04_24.docx
Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
1 Centerview Drive
Suite 208
Greensboro
North Carolina 27407
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.

NC Engineering License # C-1869
NC Surveying License # C-1869

Page:
1/4
MEMO
To:
Project File
Copies:
[Copies]
From:
Ron Johnson, PWS

Date: Arcadis Project No.:
April 24, 2018 GRGRN500.D001
Subject:
Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation

This Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Memo summarizes the results of a wetland and waterbody
delineation field survey conducted on February 6, 2018, by Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (Arcadis)
on behalf of the City of Greensboro (City) at the Western Trail Stream Restoration Project (Project) in
Greensboro, North Carolina (Attachment 1, Figure 1). The survey was focused on an approximate 0.22-acre
area centered on an unnamed tributary to Brush Creek located at approximately 36.123448, -79.920713
(Attachment 1, Figure 2).
The purpose of this delineation was to assess the presence or absence of wetlands or ot her waters that
may be impacted by the proposed Project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Prior to conducting the wetland and waterbody delineation, Arcadis reviewed the following resources to
identify the potential locations and extent of wetlands and waterbodies within the Project area:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, Guilford, NC (USGS, 1994);
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD-mapped streams) (NHD, 2018);
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI ) dataset
(USGWS, 2018);
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2018); and
• Aerial Photography (Google Earth, 2017).

arcadis.com
G:\PROJECT\Greensboro NC\Western Trail - Stormwater\PM\from Ron Johnson\Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation Memo_2018_04_24.docx Page:
2/4
MEMO
The USGS topographic mapping and NHD-mapped stream dataset, which identify intermittent and perennial
streams, show one stream within the environmental survey area.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps are used as a guide, along with other data, to indicate the potential
presence of wetlands. The information is often out of date and not necessarily field -verified. The presence
of an NWI feature is not a definitive indicator that a wetland or waterbody is present. The NWI data indicate
that no mapped wetlands or waterbodies are located within the environmental survey area (USFWS, 2018).
According to the USDA Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2018), one soil unit, classified as non-hydric, is mapped
within the environmental survey area. The soil unit is Poplar Forest clay loam, 6-10% slopes. Generally, soil
units identified as hydric contain soils that indicate through their color and structure that they have
experienced dominantly reducing (i.e., oxygen poor) conditions, which are a result of inundation and/or
saturation by water. Predominantly non-hydric soil units may contain hydric soil inclusions, but the majority
of the unit is non-hydric. Soil units identified as non-hydric have no hydric soil components identified in the
mapped soil unit.
A review of 2017 aerial photography (Google Earth, 2017) of the Project area (Attachment 1, Figure 2)
shows that the surrounding land use is predominantly residential with the survey area being a forested
riparian area.
The Project is located within the Haw River watershed (HUC 03030002) (USEPA, 2018).
METHODOLOGY
The wetland and waterbody delineation was conducted according to the routine onsite methodology
described in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the 2012
USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0) [USACE, 2012]. If identified, a wetland data point is collected within
each identified wetland, and a paired upland data point is collected adjacent to the wetland. Addit ional data
points are collected in upland areas exhibiting some degree of wetland characteristics. One upland data
point was taken (DP01). The location and quantity of data points are based on the best-professional-
judgment of the wetland scientist. If a delineated wetland has more than one Cowardin classification, a data
point is collected within each Cowardin classification of the wetland (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE have issued a joint guidance
document describing waters that are regulated under the Clean Water Act. According to this guidance,
wetlands and waterbodies that are adjacent to or have a significant nexus to Traditionally Navigable
Waterways (TNW) are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (USACE and USEPA,
2008). A significant nexus must meet a number of criteria that indicate the wetland provides biological,
physical, or chemical benefits to the TNW. Typically, a significant nexus requires a surface wate r connection
to the TNW or to a relatively permanent water (RPW) that is tributary to the TNW. Each identified waterbody
within the environmental survey area was evaluated for significant nexus to RPWs according to these
guidelines. Wetlands with no appare nt surface nexus to an RPW or TNW were considered isolated or likely
to be considered non-jurisdictional by the USACE.
Preliminary jurisdictional evaluations are based on field surveys and desktop evaluations conducted by
Arcadis to determine hydrologic or other connection to TNWs and constitute Arcadis’s opinion only. The
USACE and/or North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) are responsible for making final
determinations of jurisdiction.

arcadis.com
G:\PROJECT\Greensboro NC\Western Trail - Stormwater\PM\from Ron Johnson\Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation Memo_2018_04_24.docx Page:
3/4
MEMO
SURVEY RESULTS
Vegetative Communities
The environmental survey area comprises early to mid-successional forest and an intermittent waterbody.
The early successional forest community was dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American
beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweetgum (Liriodendron styraciflua), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Representative photographs of the vegetative communities are included in Attachment 2.
Soils
Soil samples were taken at one location in the survey area (DP01). The sample taken did not exhibit
saturation or characteristics that meet hydric soil indicator criteria.
Wetlands and Waterbodies
No wetlands and one intermittent waterbody (S-01) were identified within the environmental survey area.
Stream S-01 is an unnamed tributary to Brush Creek and was classified as intermittent. S-01 is
approximately 2-3 feet wide with substrate dominated by sand and small gravel. A NCDWQ stream form for
S-01 and a data form of representative upland areas are included in Attachment 3.
CONCLUSION
This memo summarizes the results of a wetland and waterbody delineation conducted by Arcadis within the
environmental survey area at the Western Trail Stream Restoration Project in Greensboro, NC, on February
6, 2018. Arcadis did not identify wetlands but identified one intermittent waterbody within the environmental
survey area.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 704-488-8054, or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc.

Ron Johnson, PWS
Environmental Planning Professional

Attachments: 1 – Figures
2 – Representative Photographs
3 – Data Forms

REFERENCES
Aerial Photography. 2017. Google Earth
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and de epwater
habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (online edition). http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands.pdfs/wlman87.pdf.

arcadis.com
G:\PROJECT\Greensboro NC\Western Trail - Stormwater\PM\from Ron Johnson\Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation Memo_2018_04_24.docx Page:
4/4
MEMO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). 2018. USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Available at:
http://services.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer. Accessed April 2018.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Viewed in Google Earth in April 2018.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0)”, ERDC/EL TR -12-9,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. April 2012.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 2008a. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos
v. United States & Carabell v. United States.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdiction_Followi
ng_Rapanos120208.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Surf Your Watershed.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm. Accessed February 2018.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).). 2018. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. United States Department of the Interior, United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. Guilford, NC. 1:24,000 7.5 Minute Series. Available online
at http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/. Accessed February 2018.

ATTACHMENT 1
Figures

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
1 inch = 500 feet
0 250 500 750 1,000125Feet
Prepared By: ARCADISDate: February 2018
Overview MapCity of GreensboroWestern Trail
Guilford County, NC
Sources: ESRI Imagery
Legend
Project Site
Street Centerlines ¯1 FIGURE
I-73
Inman RoadWestern Trail
Firewood Trail
Muir Field
Drive
Highview Road
Old
O
a
k

R
i
d
g
e

R
o
a
d
DP01
WESTERN TL
FIREWOOD TL
NCCGIA
1 inch = 40 feet
0 20 40 60 8010Feet
Prepared By: ARCADISDate: February 2018
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURESCity of GreensboroWestern Trail
Guilford County, NC
Sources: NC One Orthoimagery
Legend
DP01
Project Site
Street Centerlines
Tributary ¯2
FIGURE

ATTACHMENT 2
Representative Photographs

Photo 1. Downstream view of S‐01.Photo 2. Upstream view of S‐01 showing severe erosion at outfall.
Photo 3. View of forested habitat.Photo 4. View of upland data point location.
ATTACHMENT 3
Data Forms
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if • 19 or perennial if • 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________)Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 01 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Sampling Point
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present?
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Field Observations:
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
City/County:
Applicant/Owner: State:
Other (Explain in Remarks)
floodplain
Investigator(s):
Soil Map Unit Name
Surface Water (A1)
Yes
No
No
LRR N 36.1234064
Poplar Forest clay loam, 6-10% slopes
Long.:
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
UPL
2/6/2018Sampling Date:Western Trail Stream Restoration Project Greensboro
concave
-79.9205444
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Lat.:
Project/Site:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Are "normal
circumstances" present?
HYDROLOGY
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
No
Iron Deposits (B5)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Saturation (A3)
High Water Table (A2)
Yes X Depth (inches):
Inundation Visible on Aerial
Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
No X Depth (inches):
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
NYes
X
No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
Depth (inches):Yes No
Wetland
hydrology
present?
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on
Living Roots (C3)
Yes X
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water Marks (B1)
Datum:
City of Greensboro
Section, Township, Range:
DP01North Carolina
Ron Johnson
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum
1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum
2 Herb Stratum
3 Woody Vine Stratum
4
5 Dominance Test Worksheet
6
7
8 (A)
9
10 (B)
= Total Cover
(A/B)
1 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Total % Cover of:
3 OBL species x 1 =
4 FACW species x 2 =
5 FAC species x 3 =
6 FACU species x 4 =
7 UPL species x 5 =
8 Column totals (A)(B)
9 Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
= Total Cover
1
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
50%20%
0
6
6
15
15
0
0
Sampling Point:DP01VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Morphological adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
0

0
40
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC:
10
0
Y FACU

Dominant
Species

60

Indicator
Status
0

Indicator
Status
0

Woody Vine
Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft. )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species

30
Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft. )
Absolute
% Cover

Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
Ligustrum sinense 30
30
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum Plot Size ( 15 ft. )
Absolute
% Cover
Fagus grandifolia

FACU

Y

10
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Status
10 Y
Y
FACW
FAC
Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft.
10
Platanus occidentalis
Liquidambar styraciflua
)Absolute
% Cover
210
2
50.00%
3.50
0
160
30
0
4
10
N
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
20
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (A1) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)Depleted Matrix (F3)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric soil present?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Type:
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
**Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
silt loam
RemarksType*
Redox Features Texture
silt loam
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
%
3-12 10YR 5/6
0-3 10010YR 4/4
100
Sampling Point:
Color (moist) Color (moist) %
DP01SOIL
Loc**
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
No indicator met
Depth (inches):
N
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9)
(MLRA 147, 148)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
S-01 36.123448 -79.920713 150 Perennial Stream 404
NC Guiliford Greensboro
36.123448 -79.920713
Brush Creek
February 6, 2018
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or toprovideanofficial
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.