SWS Website    SWS Forum - Main Page    SWS Forum - Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  General Wetland Topics    New JD Forms & Routine Wetland Determination Forms

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Find
Notify
Tools
New JD Forms & Routine Wetland Determination Forms
 Login/Join 
Picture of Tom Kunneke
posted
In the past I have completed a Routine Wetland Form for both wetlands and streams when submitting a JD request to Corps. In addition to an upland site form at the corresponding wetland site (per Corps requirements). I use a form for wetland, upland, stream so that regulator has that record.

I would be curious to hear what others do with regard to streams and the Routine Wetland Form, since they are part of the "area" discussion on new JD Forms. I continue to fill out a Form for the streams.

Thanks.
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: 23 March 2005Report This Post
Picture of Eric Jonson
posted Hide Post
quote:
Johnny Stevens said:

There is hope that new leadership at the EPA and Corps can straighten out the wetlands regulatory program.


Don't bet on it. When the USACOE decided to hire the wife of John Paul Woodley's Regulatory coordinator to head the their Regulatory program, I would only expect it to get worse before it gets better. Wetland regulations and USACOE Regulatory program decision making around the family dinner table
 
Posts: 14 | Registered: 21 February 2006Report This Post
posted Hide Post
Adam Karagosian said:

“…Johnny, I believe you are confusing the Routine Wetland Determination Form from the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual with the new JD Forms (for determining and documenting jurisdiction)…"


Dear Adam,

The recent EPA/Corps Rapanos Guidance memorandum issued on Dec. 2, 2008, states on page 12 that the agencies are developing a revised JD form to be used by field regulators for documenting the assertion or declination of CWA jurisdiction. Does anyone know the status of this new JD form?

I read a report that the Obama Administration is trying to replace one of the two men who signed the Rapanos Guidance - John Paul Woodley of the Corps. Implementation of this guidance may be stalled because it was issued in the last days of the Bush Administration so it is currently under review.

There is hope that new leadership at the EPA and Corps can straighten out the wetlands regulatory program.

Is there a method or proposal by which wetlands related projects could create jobs and benefit our economy, and legitimately qualify for funding as an econmic stimulus?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Johnny Stevens,
 
Posts: 788 | Registered: 26 December 2003Report This Post
posted Hide Post
Since streams are "Waters of the US" rather than "wetlands" they are COE jurisdiction but don't need a determination I don't think. There are of course different Cowardin classes of streams/rivers that can/should be included in a wetland mapping of an area.
 
Posts: 1493 | Location: Boulder Colorado USA | Registered: 29 December 2008Report This Post
Picture of Adam Karagosian
posted Hide Post
In NC I typically do not fill out Routine Wetland Determination Data Form for streams. With my JD packages I typically include the NC stream forms to provide info on why a channel should (or should not) be considered jurisdictional, and to support mitigation “proposals” in a permit application. As Tom K points out, the NC Division of Water Quality has the Stream Identification Form to help determine if a stream would be considered ephemeral, intermittent or perennial by the NCDWQ. Also, the Corps Wilmington District uses the Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet to assist in determining if a stream is jurisdictional, as well as to measure stream quality (what they have termed "aquatic significance" or "aquatic importance") to assist in determining what, if any, mitigation is required for stream impacts. Remember, certain Nationwide Permits do not require mitigation for all intermittent streams if it can be demonstrated that the stream quality is so poor as to not merit mitigation. The Wilmington District has been following this practice well before the Nationwide Permits spelled it out I think in 2002. At least, that has been the case in the Piedmont, Mountains, and Sandhills.

In SC I have included Routine data forms for streams making sure to note stream rather than wetland, and typically using a cowardin classification.

Johnny, I believe you are confusing the Routine Wetland Determination Form from the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual with the new JD Forms (for determining and documenting jurisdiction).
 
Posts: 30 | Location: NC | Registered: 11 March 2003Report This Post
posted Hide Post
There is some confusion regarding the topic of this discussion. Initially, the subject appeared to be the new Jurisdictional Determination Form that was issued with the Rapanos Guidance Documents. However, the comments above are about the new data forms for the draft Regional Supplements to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (it is increasingly difficult to keep track of wetlands paperwork).

While it is true that regulatory staff are beginning to use the new Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form and the Regional Supplements, none of these documents are official regulations. These are preliminary draft regulatory proposals that have been issued for public comment, and have not yet been officially adopted and codified, and therefore are not legally binding on the regulated public at this time.

It is my understanding that land owners and permit applicants may request that the Corps only utilize the original 87 Manual for delineating wetlands and other waters, and the Corps will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Johnny Stevens,
 
Posts: 788 | Registered: 26 December 2003Report This Post
Picture of Tommy Dye
posted Hide Post
Andrew,
Currently the Mobile District does not have its own data form for streams. My submissions for impacted streams have been on ROSGEN forms that I purchased through the Wildland Hydrology website, which they have in PDF, Excel, and hardcopy formats. It wouldn't be too difficult to throw a custom one together in excel.

For non-impacted streams, I just note the stream type, width, etc. in the remarks section of the standard wetland delineation form.
 
Posts: 58 | Location: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: 22 February 2008Report This Post
Picture of Tom Kunneke
posted Hide Post
I believe what Tommy is referring to, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is notating the stream feature on the standard Routine Wetland Determination Form. That's what I was referring to in original post, using that form to document streams within delineation area. I like the Rosgen usage, but typically I denote the NWI map code (R4SBC, R2UBH, etc.) and add any veg., hydro., soils data pertinent to the site on the Routine Form. Rosgen is used throughout the state of NC for stream restoration projects.

On the new Draft Wetland Determination Data Form for Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain Region (USACE), the only place to add that stream classification initially is in the NWI classification line of that form.

In NC there's also a widely recognized Stream Identification Form used to score/evaluate, and is particularly useful in the assessment of piedmont streams (ephemeral, seasonal, permanent). It works well and usually takes about 30 minutes at a field site.
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: 23 March 2005Report This Post
Picture of Andrew Geffert
posted Hide Post
Tommy,
I have seen the Rosgen river classification system, but I have never seen a data sheet from the Corps specific to rivers. Does the Corps simply request the river class and an explaination for the class you give it? If you have a link to a data sheet, please post.
 
Posts: 457 | Location: West Bend, WI | Registered: 25 February 2005Report This Post
Picture of Tommy Dye
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Geffert:
There is a separate data form for rivers? I have not seen (or used) it.


Its a Stream and River classification system of its own, developed out west by Dave Rosgen and it is slowly being adopted by use for the COE (at least in the Mobile and Vicksburg Districts). It does add time and expense to a project, but it also adds quite a bit of useful data for hydrological studies where you need to compare the baseline of two streams.
 
Posts: 58 | Location: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: 22 February 2008Report This Post
posted Hide Post
Regarding the new Approved JD Form, I have found that it is sometimes difficult to obtain accurate and reliable data on tributary characteristics and significant nexus
 
Posts: 788 | Registered: 26 December 2003Report This Post
Picture of Andrew Geffert
posted Hide Post
There is a separate data form for rivers? I have not seen (or used) it.
 
Posts: 457 | Location: West Bend, WI | Registered: 25 February 2005Report This Post
Picture of Tom Kunneke
posted Hide Post
Tommy,
Thanks for the info. You point out how important it is for a regulator to have the relevant data pertinent to proposed activities, and the Rosgen usage would be valuable here in the Carolinas where a lot of stream mitigation/restoration already takes place through DOT project allocations.
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: 23 March 2005Report This Post
Picture of Tommy Dye
posted Hide Post
For non-impacted streams in a delineation area I use the standard wetland form and simply note the stream parameters on it. For streams that will be impacted by construction, and will require mitigation the Mobile District has begun requiring ROSGEN stream surveys for the sections of the stream that will be directly impacted. This provides a baseline data set that can be used to either match up parameters to find a suitable mitigation bank or return the stream to this baseline with on-site mitigation methods.
 
Posts: 58 | Location: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: 22 February 2008Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

SWS Website    SWS Forum - Main Page    SWS Forum - Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  General Wetland Topics    New JD Forms & Routine Wetland Determination Forms

© SWS 2010