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): 1/16/2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, Norton Farm, LRC-2015-31

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 39W369 Rte 64 State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Kane City: Campton Hills Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.92893°N, Long. -88.38663° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed Tributary to Ferson Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Fox River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Fox (07120007) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 1/16/2015, 12/29/2008, 1/6/2000 Field Determination. Date(s): 10/21/2008

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland A is a 1.37 acre high quality closed depressional isolated wetland. Wetlands B and C (0.08 ac and 0.15 ac) are isolated wetlands that formed over a failed drain tile and are over 1,200 feet away from the closest jurisdictional waterway..

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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.

2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 1.6 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Wetland Assessment Report dated 9/26/2014 by Wills Burke Kelsey Associates. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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:Elburn HA 229, 1966, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Elburn 7.5", 1993, Geneva 15", 1948, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Kane County, Illinois (2003). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Elburn, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Kane County ADID, NRCS Swampbuster Map, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2013. or Other (Name & Date): site photos provided by consultant. Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: LRC-2008-563 12/29/2008, 200000203 1/6/2000. Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): Certified Farmed Wetland Determination dated 10/20/1999. B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Weland A and the area around Wetlands B and C were previously determined to be isolated in 2008. Wetland C is mapped as Prior Converted in a NRCS certified farmed wetland determination - other areas are mapped as not inventoried. Area(s) are geographically isolated. . Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. . Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. Wetlands are depressions surrounded by farmland. Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. Draintiles are broken, allowing wetlands to form near B and C. Wetland A is a closed depression . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. Wetland A is a closed depression, in its own isolated floodplain depression. Wetland B is in the floodplain, but is 1,200 feet away from the creek. Wetland C is not in a floodplain.

2

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): February 4, 2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, Cabela's JD, LRC-2014-873

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 7700 Cabela Drive State: Indiana County/parish/borough: Lake City: Hammond Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.569264°N, Long. -87.481406° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Little Calumet River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Little Calumet River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Little Calumet (07120003) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 4, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s):

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Two wetland areas were identified and determined not to be jurisdictional due to no hydrologic nexus to navigable waters.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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. 2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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. 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: . Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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:, Pick List, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: , , . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Pick List. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: **may want to include info about soils, and distance to the nearest JD area**. Area(s) are geographically isolated. . Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. . Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): November 20, 2013 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, ABP IL LLC, LRC-2014-842

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: East of Route 50, North of Crete-Monee Road State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Will City: University Park Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.4355°N, Long. -87.7314° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Forked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Grand Calumet River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Illinois (07120005) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: January 14, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s): January 12, 2015

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: There are 3 shallow wetland features with sloped drainage surrounded by corn fields, and water pools and evaporates, and possibly picked up by sub-surface farm tiles (unknown); but have no drainage off-site on the surface.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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.

2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 8 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: CBBEL Wetland Assessment Report dated October 28, 2014. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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:Steger HA 209, 1966, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Steger 7.5", 1990, Pick List, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Will County, Illinois (2004). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Steger, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Pick List, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: LRC-2006-927, August 16, 2006. Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Prior JD found all areas isolated; site visit to walk all boundaries found no outlets either or surface water flow off-site, and no nearby creek. Area(s) are geographically isolated. Large shallow wetland feature surrounded by corn, some areas pool water, then evaporates. Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. No connection to any flowing water body. Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): December 23, 2014 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, Kruger Road Property, LRC-2015-12

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NW Corner of Midlothian Road and Kruger Road State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Lake City: Hawthorn Woods Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 42.228068°N, Long. -88.064822° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Indian Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Des Plaines River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Des Plaines (07120004) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: January 15, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s): January 12, 2015

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland 1 is a small (0.16 ac) isolated pocket surrounded by uplands, with no outlet. Wetland 2 is a 0.69 acre depressional pocket in an old farm parcel, and has no outlets. Wetland 3 is a large (15.67 acre) localized regional depressional storage feature surrounded by uplands 10+ feet higher, with no flow off-site. None of these 3 wetlands are connected to Indian Creek, and therefore are isolated and non-jurisdictional.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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. 2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 16.52 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Hey and Assoicates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report dated December 26, 2014. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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: Lake Zurich HA 208, 1966, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Lake Zurich 7.5", 1993, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Lake County, Illinois (2005). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Lake Zurich, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Lake County ADID, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Preliminary JD's were done in 2013 with Lake Co. SMC, and the wetlands were also found to be isolated waters of Lake County. Area(s) are geographically isolated. Localized depressional storage feature. Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. No water flows off-site. Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. Wetlands are in bottom of huge depressional zone. Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): January 20, 2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, LRC-2014-910, Bluestone Development

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SW Corner of Rt. 64 and Gary Aveneu State: Illinois County/parish/borough: DuPage City: Carol Stream Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.90372°N, Long. -88.124° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: E. Br. DuPage River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Des Plaines River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Des Plaines (07120004) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: January 23, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s): January 2, 2015

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: One small (0.05 ac) wetland impounded up against Rt. 64, and larger (2.0 ac) wetland that overflows into detention basin with no outlets; neither has a surface water connection to any flowing water of the U.S..

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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. 2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 2.05 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: EnCAP, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report dated November 17, 2011. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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: Lombard HA 143, 1964, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Lombard 7.5", 1993, Pick List, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of DuPage County, Illinois (1999). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Lombard, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): DuPage County ADID, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Walked site completely on January 2, 2015. Requested maps of all storm sewers to verify that no flow to any waters of the U.S. Area(s) are geographically isolated. Localized depression. Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. Water stays on site in main wetland. Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. Surrounded by commerical and residential development. Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): January 12, 2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, Homer Glen Trail, LRC-2015-47

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NE of 159th and Parker State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Will City: Homer Glen Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.61018°N, Long. -87.93253° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Long Run Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Des Plaines River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Des Plaines (07120004) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: January 26, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s): January 20, 2015

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetlands 2, 3 and 4 are all isolated depressions with no outlet to any flowing water of the U.S..

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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.

2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 5.52 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: HR Green Wetland Delineation Report dated June 2013. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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:Mokena HA 204, 1966, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Mokena 7.5", 1993, Pick List, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Will County, Illinois (2004). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Mokena, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Pick List, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Each wetland boundary was walked while looking at all available maps. Area(s) are geographically isolated. Within ComEd ROW, with development on both sides. Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. . Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): January 20, 2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, Big Timber Landscape Company, LRC-2015-66

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SW of Galligan Road and Koppie Drive State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Kane City: Gilberts Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 42.10869°N, Long. -88.37609° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: S. Br. Kishwaukee River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Rock River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Kishwaukee (07090006) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 3, 2015 Field Determination. Date(s): January 30, 2015

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Large depressional bowl-shaped wetland complex that has no outlet to any flowing water of the U.S..

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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.

2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: 10 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Applicant supplied location documents. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 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:Pingree Grove HA 232, 1967, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Pingree Grove 7.5", 1992, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Kane County, Illinois (2003). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Pingree Grove, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Kane County ADID, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 2005, 2008, 2012. or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: LRC-2012-177 Violation Investigation. Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Site boundary walked back in 2012, and again in 2015.. Area(s) are geographically isolated. Large depressional localized feature that ponds and evaporates. Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. No outlet across RR tracks to creek. Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. . Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

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): 1/5/2015 B.

DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Chicago District, LRC-2014-492

C.

PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: East of Mitchell Road, North of I-88. State: Illinois County/parish/borough: Kane City: Aurora Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 41.80048°N, Long. -88.29976° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 83 Name of nearest waterbody: Fox River Tributary Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Fox River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Fox (07120007) 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 EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 1/5/2015 Field Determination. Date(s): 10/16/2014

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “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] B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 2.

Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland 3 is a shallow depression that recieves runnoff from the surrounding area. Wetland 3 does not drain to a waters of the U.S. Drainageway/Wetland 4 is a shallow drainageway that does not flow into waters of the U.S. The drainageway opens up into an agricultural field and disappears.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 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):2 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 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres.

1

Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 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.

2

1

F.

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): . 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): 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: Wetland 3 (0.015) acres and Drainageway/Wetland 4 (0.1) 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): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: CBBEL. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Yes 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:Aurora North HA 70, 1963, . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Aurora North 7.5", 1993, Pick List, Pick List, . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Will County, Illinois (2004). National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Aurora North, . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Kane County ADID, Pick List, . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 2013. or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: . Area(s) are geographically isolated. . Area(s) do not have a hydrologic nexus. . Area(s) do not have an ecological nexus. . Area(s) do not have evidence of a subsurface flow connection to a jurisdictional water. Area(s) do not have evidence of surface overland sheet flow. . Area(s) are not located within the flood plain. .

2

.