Agenda - 04-03-2018 8-e - Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Morgan Ridge Subdivision

Browse Search

74 -6- ❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. ❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or ❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or ❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 10 ❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. ❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. ❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. ❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: ❑ Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide. ❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: ❑ Wetlands: acres. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and /or appropriate Regional Supplements. ❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ® Other: (explain, if not covered above): See Section II.11.2 above. v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Folloiving Rapanos.