Laserfiche WebLink
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not <br /> jurisdictional. Explain: Ditch 1. See reference below in Section III.F. <br /> SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS <br /> A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs <br /> The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, <br /> complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1.only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete <br /> Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise,see Section III.B below. <br /> 1. TNW <br /> Identify TNW: <br /> Summarize rationale supporting determination: <br /> 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW <br /> Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is"adjacent": <br /> B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY(THAT IS NOT A TNW)AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS(IF ANY): <br /> This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, <br /> and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. <br /> The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are"relatively <br /> permanent waters"(RPWs),i.e.tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least <br /> seasonally(e.g.,typically 3 months).A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic <br /> resource is not a TNW,but has year-round (perennial)flow,skip to Section III.D.2.If the aquatic resource is a <br /> wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,skip to Section III.D.4. <br /> A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation.Corps <br /> districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a <br /> significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial(and its adjacent wetlands if any) <br /> and a traditional navigable water,even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. <br /> If the waterbody4 is not an RPW,or a wetland directly abutting an RPW,a JD will require additional data to <br /> determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands,the <br /> significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands.This <br /> significant nexus evaluation that combines,for analytical purposes,the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is <br /> used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary,or its adjacent wetlands,or both.If the JD <br /> covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary,Section III.B.2 for any onsite <br /> wetlands,and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite.The determination <br /> whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below. <br /> 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW <br /> (i) General Area Conditions: <br /> Watershed size: Pick List <br /> Drainage area: Pick List <br /> Average annual rainfall: inches <br /> Average annual snowfall: inches <br /> (ii) Physical Characteristics: <br /> (a) Relationship with TNW: <br /> ❑Tributary flows directly into TNW. <br /> ❑Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. <br /> Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. <br /> Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. <br /> Project waters are Plck List aerial(straight)miles from TNW. <br /> Project waters are Pick List aerial(straight)miles from RPW. <br /> Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: <br /> °Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales,ditches,washes,and erosional features generally and <br /> in the and West. <br /> 2 <br />