20091149 Ver 1_Complete File_20100112

Proposed Interchange at the Intersection of
US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway)
Columbus County
WBS Element 40224.1.1
TIP PROJECT R-4900
Finding of No Significant Impact
September 2008
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Cos
Kristine O. Graham, P.E.
Proj t lanning Engineer
SEX ?
?04J8 .
rtes R. Cox, P.E. O?,?Dp?,.?`?
Project Development Gr p Supervisor, Eastern Region
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Proposed Interchange at.the Intersection of
US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway)
Columbus County
WBS Element 40224.1.1
TIP PROJECT R-4900
COMMITMENTS DEVELOPED THROUGH PROTECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Roadway Design/Division 6 Construction
NCDOT will use 3:1 slopes in all wetland areas for this project.
Division 6 Construction
NCDOT will minimize the clearing performed within the limits of the ramp located in the
southwest quadrant of the interchange.
R-4900 Finding of No Significant Impact Page I of 1
September 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION ......................................................................................................... ..1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................1
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................2
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...............................................................................................2
V. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ........................................................4
VI. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ..........................................................................5
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) .......................................................... ..5
B: Comments Received on the EA ........................................................................................ ..5
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .....:.............:.......:
............................................. .5
.
2. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service .........................:::......................:..................................... 11
3. NC Division of Environmental Health ..............................'.:.......::................................. 11
4. NC Wildlife Resources Commission ............................................................................. 12
5. NC Division of Water Quality ....................................................................................... 12
C. Public Involvement ............................................................................................................ 16
VII. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................. 17
A. Purpose and Need ................................................:............................................................. 17
B. Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 17
C. Avoidance and Minimization ............................................................................................. 17
VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .........................................................r........................ 19
A. Merger Process Coordination ............................................................................................ 19
B. Air Quality - Mobile Source Air Toxics ....................................................'....................... 19
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING ................................................. 20
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .......................................... 21
TABLES
Table 1: R-4900 Resource Impacts
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
• Figure 1 Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 Potential Prime Farmland Impacts
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Merger Process Forms
.......3
Appendix D USFWS Concurrence Letter
v

Proposed Interchange at the Intersection of
US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway)
Columbus County
WBS Element 40224.1.1
TIP PROJECT R-4900
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Project Development and Enviromnental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I. ,TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
. The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the environment. This FONSI is based on the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA),
which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope,
and content of the EA.
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
proposes to convert an existing at-grade intersection to an interchange at the intersection
of US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 near Evergreen in Columbus County. The total length of
the project is approximately at 0.8 mile. The existing intersection will be upgraded to a
modified diamond configuration interchange with ramps and loops located in the
northeast and southwest quadrants. A new 235-foot long, 40-foot wide bridge will be
constructed over US'74.
According to the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), right-of-way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 2009, with construction to begin in FFY 2010. The current estimated total
cost is approximately $10,434,000, which includes $70,000 for right-of-way acquisition,
$9,700,000 for construction, and $664,000 for mitigation.
III.. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Several alternatives were evaluated in the EA, including the "no-build"
alternative, a standard diamond configuration interchange, and a modified diamond
configuration interchange. The modified diamond alternative was shown at the public
hearing as the preferred alternative due to the fact that it impacts the least amount of
wetlands and surface waters while still providing the necessary transportation and safety
improvements.
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environments were minimized for the
proposed project through alternative .selection and design shifts within the two build
alternatives. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as
a result of the project. The proposed project will not adversely impact any historic
structures eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places or any known
archaeological sites eligible for.listing in the National Register. The project will not
involve any relocation of residences or businesses. The project will impact
approximately 9.40 acres of wetlands and 366 linear feet of streams. No Environmental
Justice issues were identified. The Biological Conclusions for the wood stork is May
affect-Not likely to Adversely Affect. Table 1 below gives a comprehensive list of
resources and the impacts associated with each.
2
Table 1: R-4900 Resource Impacts
Resource Impacts
Length 0.8 mile
Railroad Crossings 0
Schools 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0
Churches 0
Cemeteries 0
Major Utility Crossings 0
National Register Eligible Properties 0
Archaeological Sites 0
Federally Listed Species within Corridor 1*
100-Year Flood lain Crossings
Prime Farmland 74.4 acres
Terrestrial Forest Impacts 13.4 acres
Residential Relocations 0
Business Relocations 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0
Wetland Impacts 9.4 acres
Stream Crossings I
Stream Impacts 366 linear feet
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0
Substantial Noise Impacts 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0
Section 4(f) Impacts (Historic) 0
Low Income Population Impacts None
Minority Population ulation Impacts None
Construction Cost $9,700,000
Right-of-Way Cost $70,000
Mitigation Cost $664,000
Total Project Cost $10,434,000
* This project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork.
3
V. ACTIONS REOUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
An Individual Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
due to impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
A Water Quality Certification is required from the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Section.
4
VI. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
The FHWA approved the EA on March 13, 2008. The approved EA was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies- for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in Appendix B of this document. Responses to
substantial comments are noted below in Section B.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Division
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
* N.C. Division of Environmental Health
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
B. Comments Received on the EA
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Aeenc
COMMENT: "EPA is recommending that NCDOT and FHWA consider an EA Re-
evaluation before a final NEPA decision is made. EPA has substantial
environmental concerns regarding the magnitude of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams in light of the limited scope of this
proposed project. Avoidance and minimization efforts under Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines have not been adequately demonstrated. We
recommend that this project be placed into the NEPA/Section 404
Merger 01 process at Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need)."
RESPONSE: NCDOT met with the FHWA, USACE, and DWQ in October 2007. At
that time, the team agreed that the project did not need to go through the
Merger process. NCDOT plans to examine and respond to all of the
EPA's comments thoroughly. Significant effort was made to avoid and
minimize impacts to the wetlands on this project without compromising
the safety or the utility of the design, including changing the original
5
design from a standard interchange to a modified diamond. Given that
this intersection is not only listed in the North Carolina Highway Safety
Improvement Program, but that it has the highest severity index and
number of crashes of all listed intersections in Columbus County, the
need for this project in terms of safety improvements is evident.
COMMENT: "Based upon a three year crash and safety analysis performed between
. 2002-and:_2005, this intersection experienced 11 total crashes (no
fatalities) with 8 of the 11 being angle crashes. The EA does not provide
a comparison to a statewide average for a similar facility."
RESPONSE: Comparisons to the Statewide -Crash Average for crash rates I at
intersections do not exist.: This data is only available for individual
sections of roadway.
COMMENT: "The EA does not provide a traffic comparison to other intersections and
interchanges along US 74 (e.g„ the intersection of Strawberry Boulevard
and US 74 INC 130 in Columbus County, the intersection of Macedonia
Church Road and US 741NC 130 in Columbus County or the intersection
.of US 74 and NC 130 and NC 72 in Robeson County). Table 4 is not
compared to other similar type facilities and improvements so it is
difficult for EPA to understand the significance the traffic measure in
passenger cars/mile/lane between 2005 and 2030 when compared to the
`No-build' or other alternatives. The traffic information concerning the
`seconds/vehicle' at the different turning movements between 2005 and
2030 does not provide a substantial justification for the project. This
data is not compared to any other intersection or interchange along
US 74 so its significance can not be measured against other comparative
locations."
RESPONSE: The capacity analysis in the EA was meant to provide justification for
the project. Its purpose was to show the secondary benefits that an
interchange would have on capacity.
COMMENT: "From a traffic flow standpoint, EPA is unclear as to why the 2005/2030
projections for NC 242 increase from 1,200 vpd in 2005 to 2,100 vpd in
2030 but the US 74 mainline (i.e., The Strategic Highway Corridor-
SHC) does not increase as much (i.e., 11,000 vpd to 19,000 vpd). EPA
would expect that the increases along the SHC #24 (US 74) would be
much greater than a rural, two-lane intersecting roadway"
RESPONSE: The actual increase in vehicles per day (vpd) along US 74/NC 130 is
8,000 versus a 900 vpd increase for NC 242.
COMMENT: "EPA does not fully understand how traffic along NC 242 is expected to
increase from 1,200 vpd to 2,100 vpd when the overall population trend
6
is not increasing in rural areas of North Carolina and Columbus
County."
RESPONSE: 'The traffic on NC 242 is mainly through traffic which does not originate
in 'Evergreen/Columbus County and is independent of the population
trends in this area. Due to the population growth in North Carolina in
general and.the growing popularity of North Carolina's coastal areas for
tourists, it is logical that through traffic in this area would be increasing.
COMMENT: 'Local transportation officials note that the US 74/1-74 initiative is not
likely to occur during the current planning horizon, and therefore, this
proposed action should be separated from decision-making on the I-74
corridor. EPA does not concur with this finding and that the proposed
project should be evaluated for independent utility and as part of the
entire SHC."
RESPONSE: US 74 between Chailotte and Wilmington is designated as Strategic
Highway Corridor (SHC) # 24. The entire corridor is as follows:
US 74 between I-277 in Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) to the
Cape Fear -Memorial Bridge in Wilmington- (New. Hanover
County)
This corridor connects the Charlotte-Monroe area, Rockingham,
Lumberton, and Wilmington, a length of approximately 198 miles. US
74 between Rockingham and Bolton is part of Congressional High
Priority Route # 5, connecting Michigan to South Carolina (Interstates
'73/74) and is designated as a future interstate. This corridor is also the
primary route for motorists traveling between the beaches and ports in
the Wilmington area, North Carolina's largest city (Charlotte), and
beyond to the North Carolina mountains. US 74 is ultimately. envisioned
as a Freeway, according to the SHC Vision Plan.
The decision to upgrade this intersection to an interchange conforms to
the vision for this Strategic Highway Corridor. Though there are no
projects currently denoted in the STEP to upgrade this section of US 74
to an interstate, NCDOT plans to improve the access points as funding
becomes available.
COMMENT: "The EA does not provide a specific comparison to other intersections
between the interchange at NC 41 in Robeson County and . the US
74/NC130-US 76 split northeast of Chadboum."
RESPONSE: The main motivation behind the choice of this particular intersection is
the safety concern. Not only is the US- 74/NC 130 and NC 242
intersection included in the North Carolina Highway Safety
7
Improvement Program (NCHSIP), it has the highest number of crashes
and greatest severity index of all intersections on US 74 in both
Columbus and Robeson Counties. Three other intersections on US 74
are included in the NCHSIP, including NC 211, SR 1574 (Strawberry
Boulevard), and SR 2210 (Old Kingsdale Road), but neither of these
have an equivalent number of crashes or severity index. The project has
independent utility and improvements to address the safety problem are
appropri ate.
COMMENT: "In EPA's review of the traffic data, both the current and future
conditions, a full diamond interchange was not justified based on an
acceptable LOS forreastbound and westbound turning movements (2005
LOS A & 2030 LOS B) and potentially increased project costs."
RESPONSE: The primary purpose of putting an interchange at this location was to
increase the safety of the traveling public, not to increase capacity.
Though this interchange will improve the traffic flow in this area, the
project was not justified solely on the basis of capacity needs.
COMMENT: "The evaluation of a full range of alternatives was not provided in the
EA, including other traffic system management (TSM) measures (e.g.,
Full signalization), increased turning lane options, improved line-of-
sight options and roadway improvements for NC 242 and US 74.
NCDOT should examine what other improvements could be made to
address these deficiencies without constructing an entire new
interchange."
RESPONSE: US 74 is a Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) and the vision for this
highway is to upgrade it to a freeway. Several options, including
signalization and traffic calming techniques, were considered as
potential alternatives to construction, but were dismissed as viable
options because they would not permanently solve the safety problem.
In addition, they were not in line with the long term vision for this
facility.
COMMENT: "The EA did not provide a 'systemic' evaluation of nearby traffic routes
and other intersections along US 741NC 130 that would represent a
comparative analysis for other potential interchange locations that would
have potentially less environmental (i.e., natural resource) impacts."
RESPONSE: Because the US 74 facility has not been fully funded for an upgrade to
interstate standards, smaller individual projects have been prioritized to
address the more immediate needs of this facility. In this case, the high
number of accidents at this US-741NC 130 and NC 242 intersection were
determined to be urgent. The project as currently scoped is meant to
8
correct a safety problem, yet not preclude the future improvements that
will convert this stretch of US 74 into an interstate.
COMMENT: "EPA does not agree that the preference for a modified diamond
interchange over a standard or full diamond interchange is substantiated
`avoidance and minimization' (i.e., 9.4 acres of wetlands and 366 linear
feet of stream impact vs. 12.7 acres of. wetlands and 119 linear feet of
stream impact, respectively). EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA
consider and examine a full range of reasonable alternatives prior to
making a NEPA decision."
.RESPONSE: For this particular project, the modified diamond and standard diamond
alternatives were the only reasonable and feasible alternatives that would
meet the necessary design standards required by FHWA.
COMMENT: "Terrestrial forest impacts are not included in either Table S-1 or Table
1. EPA also notes that the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods,
Cypress-Gum Swamp and Pine Flat are included in the estimates (i.e.,
1.42, 2.15, and 6.74 acres, respectively). EPA cannot ascertain the
difference between the summation of these wetland type forest
communities and the projected jurisdictional wetland impacts of 9.4
acres."
RESPONSE: There will be 13.4 acres of terrestrial forest impacts within the project
limits.
COMMENT: "There is no Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) analysis
concerning potential impacts to farmlands that may be prime, unique or
of statewide or local importance. EPA requests that-a-prime farmland
analysis per FPPA and Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
657 be performed."
RESPONSE: A prime farmland analysis has been performed by NCDOT's Human
Environment Unit and is included in Appendix A (see Figure 2). The
analysis indicates that the total acreage of potentially affected prime
farmland in the project study corridor is 45.01 acres. However, the
actual impact to prime farmland will be significantly less than this since
the construction footprint is much smaller than the study area corridor.
COMMENT: "EPA notes that there may be an effect (May Affect-Not Likely to
Adversely Affect) on the endangered Wood Stork (Mycteria americana).
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) representative,
NCDOT had not asked for a concurrence on this determination. This
determination and consultation with FWS should be completed before a
final NEPA decision is made for the proposed project."
9
RESPONSE: Comment noted. This will be performed by the Natural Environment
Unit.
COMMENT: "Considering the scope of the proposed project, EPA has substantial
environmental concerns for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
EPA disagrees with the statement on Page 30 of the EA that, `avoidance
of the stream and wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these
resources in all quadrants surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242
intersection."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. More details are given in Section VII.C of this FONSI.
COMMENT: "Regarding the discussion on minimization on Page 30, EPA does not
believe that NCDOT' has demonstrated compliance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. The EA does not discuss the minimization efforts
to bridge wetlands, utilize engineering controls such as retaining walls or
the steepening of side slopes in wetland areas"
RESPONSE: Comment noted. More details are given in Section VII.C of this FONSI.
COMMENT: "The discussion concerning compensatory mitigation is also vague and
not consistent with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Page 31: "... will be
requested [EEP] to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal
Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project
if necessary"). EPA could not ascertain any reason why compensatory
mitigation would not be necessary for 9.4 acres of jurisdictional wetland
impacts."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "EPA recommends that NCDOT and FHWA consider re-evaluating the
transportation benefits of this project as currently designed versus the
significant impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. By upgrading this intersection to an interchange,
NCDOT will be improving the safety conditions faced by the traveling
public at this location. This site has a history of collisions and resultant
injuries and needs improvement. NCDOT will mitigate for the impacted
wetlands and streams.
COMMENT: "EPA does not concur with the decision concerning indirect and
cumulative impacts in Section 3.g. of the EA. EPA requests that this
issue be further examined by NCDOT before a final NEPA decision is
made."
10
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Indirect and cumulative impacts for this project are
being reevaluated by the Human Environment Unit and will be included
as part of the permit application.
2. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "For a project of this scope, 9.4 acres of wetland impacts is significant.
However, it appears that the recommended alternative (modified
diamond interchange) and efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to
wetlands have reduced the impact to the extent practical"
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Since the project area is already affected by the existing intersection,
wildlife habitat impacts will be limited to the direct loss within the
project footprint. No significant additional habitat fragmentation effects
are expected."
RESPONSE: Comment noted
COMMENT: "There are six federally protected species listed for Columbus County -
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides-borealis); wood stork (Mycteria
Americana), shormose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Waccamaw
silverside (Menidia extensa), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi),
and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). NCDOT has
determined that the project will have no effect on all these species
except the wood stork. NCDOT has determined that the project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork: The Service
has not yet been requested to concur with this determination. At this
time we do not have any concerns regarding federally listed species."
RESPONSE: NCDOT has requested and received concurrence from the USFWS on
the determination of effect on the wood stork (See Appendix D).
COMMENT: "The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing
fish and wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the United States,
and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
3. NC Division of Environmental Health
COMMENT: "If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans
for the water line must be submitted to the Division of Environmental
11
Health, Public Water Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634, (919) 733-
2321."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
4. NC Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT: "During final design NCDOT should consider options such as: reducing
median widths, steepened side slopes, and 'tightening' acceleration and
deceleration ramps to minimize impacts to stream and wetlands where
practicable. At this time we concur with the EA for this project."
RESPONSE: Comment noted
5. NC Division of Water Ouality
COMMENT: "This project is being planned with input from DWQ and other resource
agencies. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue
to work with the team."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Cow Branch is class C; Sw, waters of the State. DWQ is concerned
with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control
BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these
waters. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management
Practices."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Best management practices area standard procedure
for NCDOT designs.
COMMENT: "Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design cnterta
that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water
runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for
treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices
as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best
Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed
scour holes, retention basins, etc."
12
RESPONSE: As more detailed design is developed, NCDOT will be better suited to
incorporate Best Management Practices into the design.
COMMENT: "After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance
of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully
reminded that they will need to, demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum
extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Through the meetings with decision agencies and the
decision to modify the project design, NCDOT has shown its efforts to
avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams.
COMMENT: "In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) ), mitigation will be required for impacts
of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values: The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation."
RESPONSE: If mitigation is required, NCDOT will consider onsite mitigation options
or will coordinate with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for use
as stream mitigation.
COMMENT: "Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the
proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping."
RESPONSE: This information will be included in the permit application.
COMMENT: "DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impact that could
result from this project. NCDOT should address these concerns by
describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts."
RESPONSE: Please see pages 27-31 of the EA regarding potential impacts to aquatic
communities, wetlands and streams and the procedures NCDOT uses to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to them.
COMMENT: "An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result
of this project is required. The type and detail of analysis should
13
conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment
of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004."
RESPONSE: Page 19 of the EA gives a qualitative explanation of indirect and
cumulative impacts. More details will be submitted as part of the permit
application.
COMMENT: "NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but not
limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to. jurisdictional
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final
impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction
impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the
401 Water Quality Certification Application."
RESPONSE: Comment noted
COMMENT: "Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges used in lieu
of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often
require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic
organisms.. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams
are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The currently proposed alignment of the interchange
will avoid the existing culvert under US 74; therefore, no improvements
will be necessary.
COMMENT: "Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands or streams."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to
specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management.
More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge
directly into streams or surface waters."
RESPONSE: The application will address the proposed methods for stormwater
management. Stormwater will not be permitted to discharge directly
into streams or surface waters.
COMMENT: "Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of
impacts to wetlands and streams may require an individual permit
application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water
14
Quality Certification. Please be advised That a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are
lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans
where appropriate."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be
maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream
water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be
discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be
graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations.., Disturbed areas
should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native
woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the
area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other merchandized equipment and leaving
the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to revegetate naturally and
minimizes soil disturbance."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water
resources must be implemented and maintained in accordance with the
most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
NCS000250."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in
stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the
likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment
should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of
surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other
toxic materials."
15

RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in
the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life. passage.
Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized
and installed."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the
maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished
within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction."
RESPONSE: Comment noted..
C. Public Involvement
V
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an informal
combined Public Hearing was held on May 27, 2008 at Evergreen Elementary School in .
Evergreen, NC. Approximately 19 citizens were present for the hearing, the majority of
whom expressed support for this project. Verbal feedback from local residents present at
the hearing provided. compelling evidence of the high number of dangerous collisions that
occur at this location.
16
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
Q
0
a
VII. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the project is to improve the safety at this.intersection.
From April 2005 to March 2008, this intersection experienced thirteen total crashes, none
of which were fatal. Of the thirteen reported crashes, ten were angle crashes. In addition,
the intersection of US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 is listed in the North Carolina Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as.the most potentially hazardous intersection in
Columbus County and the 13th most potentially hazardous intersection in the state with a
severity index of 20.9 and a total of 39 crashes in the last ten years. The Highway Safety
Improvement Program focuses on potentially hazardous locations and hazardous features
analysis. Every . two years, NCDOT produces a Potentially Hazardous Location listing to
inventory hazardous locations on North Carolina roads. These locations are submitted to
field engineers for..on-site investigation, further analysis, and recommendation of
engineering countermeasures to address the safety problems. Included in the safety
program are locations with crashes involving intersections, interchanges., bridges,
pedestrians, wet pavement conditions, and night-time crashes.
B. Development of Alternatives
. US 74 is a Strategic Highway Corridor. The vision for this highway is to upgrade
it to a freeway. Several options, including signalization and traffic calming techniques
were considered as potential alternatives to construction, but were dismissed as viable
options because they would not permanently solve the safety problem. In addition, they
were not in line with the long term vision for this facility.
. The alternatives were narrowed down to two different design options: a standard
diamond interchange and a modified diamond interchange. Both of these alternatives
would serve to improve the safety conditions at this intersection and would be in
accordance with the future plans for this facility. Due to the number of wetlands that
would be impacted under the standard diamond configuration, the modified diamond was
chosen to be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
C. Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance
As noted in the Environmental Assessment, complete avoidance of the stream and
wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these resources in three of the quadrants
surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection.
Signalization and traffic calming techniques were considered as potential
avoidance measures, but were dismissed as viable options because they would not
permanently solve the safety problems. In addition, they were not in line with the long
term vision for this facility.
17
Minimization Efforts
• The standard diamond interchange was revised to a modified diamond
interchange. The ramp in the northwest quadrant was eliminated to reduce
impacts to a gum-cypress swamp wetland that had a higher quality rating than the
one in 'the northeast quadrant. The ramp in the southeast quadrant was also
eliminated in order to minimize wetland impacts.
• The alignment of the proposed interchange was shifted away from the existing
alignment,in order'to maintain traffic during construction and to prevent the
existing culvert under US 74 from being affected. Impacting the culvert would
lead to greater impacts to the stream and adjacent wetlands.
• A two span bridge is currently proposed for the interchange, as opposed to a
single span bridge. A single Span bridge would avoid construct ability issues that
stem from placing abridge pier in the vicinity of the existing culvert; however,
the depth of the bridge superstructure (girders) and the height of the fill would be
increased, thus increasing the horizontal footprint of the roadway fill in the
wetland areas. Also, with a two span bridge, the lateral ditch to the south that
runs parallel to US 74 can be spanned.
• Based upon NCDOT's site investigation, the culvert on NC 242 at Cow Branch
was used as a control to begin the construction limits. The proposed roadway
improvements along NC 242 begin south of the existing culvert, which eliminates
the need for a culvert extension in this environmentally sensitive area.
• Although 2:1 slopes in a wetland area are NCDOT's standard, the soils on this
site are sandy. , NCDOT is using 3:1 slopes in all wetland areas for this project,
which is standard practice for projects east of I-95.
• The ramps and loops on this design have been tightened to reduce impacts to the
wetlands on this site.
• Compensatory mitigation will be required for the wetland impacts on this project.
In the STIP, $664,000 has been allotted for mitigation costs. This amount is a
placeholder and does not reflect the actual cost of mitigation.
18
VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. Merger Process Coordination
NEPA/404 Merger is a process to streamline the project development and
permitting processes. To this effect, the Merger process provides a forum for appropriate
agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the
regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA
decision-making phase of transportation projects.
The Merger process allows agency representatives to work more efficiently
(quicker and comprehensive evaluation and resolution of issues) by providing a common
forum for them-to discuss-and find ways to comply with key-elements of their agency's
mission. The merger process helps to document how competing agency mandates are
balanced during a shared decision-making process, which results in agency
representatives reaching a "compromise based decision" to the regulatory and individual
agency mandates.
The NEPA/404 Merger Team for this, project is comprised of the following
agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, N.C. Division of Water Quality,
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. State Historic=Preservation Office, Lumber
River RPO, and N.C. Department of Transportation.
Although this project was not originally placed in the Merger process, it was
decided by members of the Merger Team to place this project in at Point 4A due to the
significant number of wetland impacts. A NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Meeting to reach
concurrence on Concurrence Point 4A, Avoidance and Minimization, and Concurrence
Point 4B, the 30% Hydraulic Review, was held on August 20, 2008. The minimization
efforts agreed to are listed in Section VILC of this document.
B. Air Quality - Mobile Source Air Toxics
Concerns for air toxics impacts are becoming more frequent on transportation
projects during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies are increasingly expected by
the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental
documents as the science emerges. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a
continuing area of research where, while much work has been done to asses the overall
health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and
techniques for assessing project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited. These
limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks should
factor into project-level decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Also, EPA has not established regulatory concentration targets for the six
relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project development process.
19
FHWA has several research projects underway to more clearly define potential risks from
MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this research is ongoing,
FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and their
relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (as according to
USDOT's Federal Highway Administration memorandum, "Interim Guidance on Air
Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents," from February 3, 2006). The FHWA will
continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative analysis
of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety as an addendum to the project Air
Quality Analysis report, which can be viewed at the PDEA Branch Office on the 4 s floor
of the NCDOT Transportation Building in.downtown Raleigh at 1 South Wilmington
Street.
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established as a national policy
to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or
indirect support of new construction wherever there is a practicable alternative.
NCDOT was unable to totally avoid wetlands because of the extent of wetlands in
the project area. It was determined there is no practicable alternative to'the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize. harm to wetlands which may result from such use. Minimization efforts are
described in greater detail in Section VII.C.
20
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the -proposed project, as documented in the
EA, and upon comments received from federal, state, local agencies, and the general
public, it is the finding of the NCDOT that this project will not have a significant adverse
impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an
environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological,. cultural,
or scenic, resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and
will not disrupt any communities. The project has been extensively coordinated with
federal, state; and local agencies. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined
that a FONSI is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact
Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
The following people may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
[phone]
KOG/tmc
21
O
B
O
O
a
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
0
•
i

Appendix A
Figures

K r ? ra. r ' ,r2.- ?? 1 ? `,\ ? I.\ y A t r. C
?n I f)I ??
' BeYJvu ? I! 1 ?`\ I? \? I. C O TL U 8 U 3,
za j
?'ll pp RRFD?w??ppy?F?? ?[ J I _ ?_ 8 P U 5 W ly
f ? k'y 1BO+AF??IYNAFV A 1. 1??; ^?'?\ f` 1 \ ! y a
f y 'f ORA
? L
r•" l 1 J
r\s 1k. 4
!, j? ?? ?\ I ? ,? r .lr 4 ? ?EVERGREEN? ?'• `
F es` /y0 I eJa ,?. I 1 !k `'? `-' 1I_n
f ?l P F `Y''
`--i'? ?:, ?}-`gam" ?? I '? .?i --?-;?r -I •?s?;d. ? ?` ? . ? -3`? G?,,,?
LI v?/, ?? ? I ? 1; 8 .-L ? 'r ? alb. y LI- S Tv1r! ? ? +?
7 4
_T 7
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
County: COLUMBUS
MAP -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT VICINITY OF TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED INTERCHANGE ow: a TIPk R-4900 Figure
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS AT
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND NBS: 4D224.1.1
• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH US 741 NC 130 AND NC 242 0
m Date: JAN 2007
BY. J.70RTORELLA COLUMBUS COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-4900
4
?1
® Z? o fl t: iv/t Ewa fi2r':?i?-? l{FItr-'q la 'Stii?i ''> °r y
? \: \ if 4 ?? ? \ y?1 1 }\h f \ r:
T
a
d d O ...?.?;y.:;'„>-'?'/? >'aY:f'3iz?i "I`:uF;,y;:?il.?ati/":i?e"?.cP: ai'`?=:A..:3. ! 1?y.+d?if%<'1„ "r1s O
?+.
N P '::?fGi::.?fi. /;i?';ti?'a':i:>%ffj""?":'lv: ::::9: ?:. _,-.:..
m 'C
'c :a:!"E:?,;?•::.?i'?:;;?s:,:lr.:!?%i%::?fri(?",S;". ,:`:r.,:: ''i:-:lra< ',?yi?.?i;:=? e;.z°3' ..?,,`!.. C
,..::. >:asr•'<= r: 5!:•';: t%,.!Fe :::.:..... ..... !+:'4:'8; .:t'.%:.,•4?;.'t'v%?"'::.I+
t0 k. ? N .
® •-i V /?">/ C y2' {r fa fi jC/// lT?r / ?`Y /? ) /'Y N /.{ y:""?i,` k{.' /. '{?. /;'` l0 ' L'
4 /
H r - t 'J 'O LL'
y0 y W C ?.
d
0 13 FEE, ;6 y
_ .lr.„k.:. .. n.:•.2 ...XY:.{"?>n;Y.J br•;;:j..:.. .>r;;Y`>%•Y:i.IY<%.''C:f"?? t;%QY '"`:'x`'litjYJ"i. NCI U N -
® O ? O H "(:p:?.::.:r..l:.F. J: •!i:P.: p:?..?..... Lr t? x a.....:: r:.. y..q;r. r:..G r.? v ' .. j:; ?Y.:::.,.p Ff ? ' .F i "
. l0 a
;:}., i:K*.. i:'iF;' {?i1';+ "::F•:? '?""'" tD ?• V' ?
,S
L a ?' is ^ +':GS•i F<t:'; ? h ?+ of
;1....:=Vy #i!y1'>>EZ?i(:;y#dtix?ls}:':`?i:+?::' a'ixia#'.4ici(i:;?...4%'i::r>• ?:.4?,':ii"";i='4i::% m. E .'-N
'::?4.:t" '::/ :ti'?5`' •/, `:??n`ti l'/''.?" Y%`: ?./?_,:: _ V Y L ? a
1 •.'• n ,?r,•_r: .>::C.s. :i;;}:::;Ir;t?;;;,5 s r::.:x;:,:.:-. ! :.;?•,')t,lm;,,.„S?;; .. O- a r c r- :
t -6 'i :1^v'?i:%:; tj'; ., ,i :ia:ir:: `i`K ,.:; ::a -: •? c '
J? i6
O :-fi';i?. „F.:!?. ^ `''4K ?,4?+i':f: ?(,4•.rr?3?t. Y_'C'? ?::.$??'.'bi?'s='s:',14 ?'s:x?_?e n u'p •?
M CL
>, x:'aY. ?;5)"<:. ..c;; V%le?)';.:X'=l`.: }X'=Parr,: vL?;?•".i$ S%`ir':';l:il' ';:a<
ry:: C « d O O A
CL :.
v
d
CL d d
0-0 ow ED
....::..., - 3 a_ o o
"
FEE, :,;'air%'?!.. . 1£.„< .[1s'.'^)<. ly<'\vt f:S' ''\i: ,[>{.a.•:t. C C ? y?
® "?i??'??r'.':`'??y:. "';S:s?%4•s:. ?<4?'":.?,,'rrgu:t ?:E,
__-._._____ 'L•„f':'s'#SF ?ix:"?.5x•ti` ?? ... - _ :: r';:e w: ¢?sj'i)?'ii`''.: y d C NOU ?
"" ui?'l??<i:_1?z?7.E?rl?s '° ? •` y d ?aI ep
"...:...':'i:?'?1`i`'':? t: `?c%:>;t. ?• N NHS
E C_- i2
ow= 12
A _ _ ::•'`kSt?il,?'sia.'s:.=':<:??5::'y"vt _. _ _ - ?'?P ? aw':?'
`+:?.i,._;?.F_i?h:i i:::.!.i"L:tr.;,•?:f: H? lr..,: ??:r..:., ?11 :l!fiv '%" .
o -
n r i
...: .i'i'i '.^:ti`:`.1'•..'S£.'?::.;<:
>;:CS.i^..as'. d <',:xl.,: ii?y4xk??X-`!:'.""i^?;s?^•1'.4`Y^:::'s':3'_?:?r. ;ax.y : ?? '4?r
'
115
3
.: ....vim (\.. \ ?..: -
:c::..e ... ....::e:xX4..:.
!<4i i?
u:;?5''l-.:"''S?':..+:r.;'•;,
a
0
O c
v a LL m
y d 3 3 c E
w UI t _` m y
o CL CL
_ NI _ O a O N N I- € E - a m
46 a. E
E '2
Ell
o 0 E aI ti d C- c€ E d CC d
O U L D
_W > p. o N Z z N m o o E
_ >3 a c? o a z U) d LL. z Q y z a`

O
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
a
O
O
O
O
4
O
O
0
O
O
O
•
•
0
0

Appendix B
Comments from Federal, State,
and Local Agencies
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
Q
4
0
0

Attachment"A'
Proposed Interchange at US 74/NC 130 and NC 242
Columbus County
TIP# R-4900
Specific EA Comments
Pumose.and Need:
Currently, the intersection at US.74/NC'130 and NC-242 is not a fully signalized
(i.e., Flashing.yellow lights on US 74/NC 130 and stops signs at NC 242): Page 9.of the
EA states that the current intersection is un-signalized. The purpose and need for this
proposed interchange is to increase safety at this intersection and to allow for future
upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards (Page ii). 'The EA further describes in Section B
accidents, capacity (Level of Service-LOS) and an interstate initiative as the need for the
proposed project (Page 3).
Based upon a three-year crash and safety analysis performed between 2002 and.
2005, this intersection experienced l ltotal crashes (no fatalities) with 8 of the 11 being
angle crashes.. The EA does not provide a comparison to a Statewide average for a
similar facility.
The'EA provides several tables concerning capacity analysis in Section E. Traffic
volumes for US 74/ NC 130 are approximately 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2005 and
are forecasted to be 19,000 vpd in 2030. The EA also explains that the current
intersection is the main intersection for accessing the Town of Evergreen. Current (2005)
LOS at the intersection is A, A, C and C for the main turning movements between
roadways. However; 2030 projections indicate that the LOS will be B, B, F and F, with
the failing movements for the northbound and southbound turning movements onto US
74. Table 2 also provides a.m. and p.m. conditions and delays in-seconds per vehicle.
The EA also provides an interchange analysis using a modified diamond
interchange (Table 3) and a modified diamond interchange ramp junction analysis (Table
4). LOS will be A for 2005 and 2030 under all conditions with a modified diamond
interchange. Unfortunately, the EA does not provide a traffic comparison to other
intersections and interchanges along US 74 (e.g., The intersection of Strawberry
Boulevard and US 74/NC 130 in Columbus County, the intersection of Macedonia
Church Road and US 74/NC 130 in Columbus County or the intersection of US 74 and
NC 130 and NC 72 in Robeson County). Table 4 is not compared to other similar type
facilities and improvements so it is difficult for EPA to understand the significance the
traffic measure in passenger cars/mile/lane between 2005 and 2030 when compared to the
'No-build'or other alternatives. The traffic information concerning the `seconds/vehicle' at
the different turning movements between 2005 and 2030 does•not.provide a substantial
justification for the project. This data is not compared to any other intersection or
interchange along US 74 so its significance can not be measured against other
comparative locations.
1
Figures 2A and 2B in the EA provide the estimated average annual daily traffic
(AADT) with truck, DHV and directional percentages for 2005 and 2030. From Figure
2A, it appears that there is almost twice the number turning movements at the intersection
of NC 242 and SR 1574 (Strawberry Boulevard) than there is at US 741NC 130 and NC
242. From a traffic flow standpoint, EPA is unclear as to why the 2005/2030 projections
for NC 242 increase from 1,200 vpd in 2005 to 2,100 vpd in 2030 but the US 74 mainline
(i.e., The Strategic Highway Corridor-SHC) does not increase as much (i.e., :11,000 vpd
to 19,000 vpd). The 100 vpd is a substantial increase in the 2030 design year between a
multi-lane US highway (i.e., A SHC) and a two lane undivided facility (i.e.,-NC 242).
EPA would expect that the increases_ along the SHC #24 (US 74) would be much greater
than a rural, two-lane intersecting roadway..
The project,study area is extremely rural and the nearest big'town is Chadboum,
NC. The EA provides population growth in Table 5 for.North Carolina, Columbus
County and Whiteville. According to the EA and population characteristics presented,
Columbus County experienced a 0.4% decrease in population between 2000 and 2005.
EPA does not fully understand how traffic along NC 242 is expected to increase from
1,200 vpd to 2,100 vpd when the overalLpopulation trend is not increasing in rural areas
of North Carolina and Columbus County. The population of the Town of Evergreen is
).
estimated to be less than 2,500 persons (www.ereatschools.net/city/Evei-green/NC
It is expected that some time in the future that US 74 will be upgraded to
interstate standards. Part of the rationale for this proposed project is to prepare the US
741NC 130 corridor for future designation as Interstate 74 (Page 19 of the EA). Local
transportation officials note that the US 74/1-74 initiative is not likely to occur during the
current planning horizon, and therefore, this proposed action should be separated from
decision-making on the I-74 corridor. EPA-does not concur with this finding and that the
proposed project should be evaluated for independent utility and as part of the entire
SHC. The EA does not provide a specific comparison to other intersections between the
interchange at NC 41 in Robeson County and the US 74/NC 130-US 76 split northeast of
Chadboum. On NCDOTs SHC website, the I-74 Feasibility Study for Brunswick and
Columbus Counties does not include this proposed interchange and the Feasibility Study
area is approximately 3-4 miles from NC 2,42 (i.e., Section 1 of the Feasibility Study
begins near US 701 just west of Whiteville, N.C, ).
EPA believes that additional data and information is required to support the
purpose and need for this proposed interchange. NCDOT and FHWA should consider
providing this informationto EPA and other agencies before a final NEPA decision is
made for the project.
Detailed Study Alternatives:
The EA indicates that 3 alternatives were considered, including the` No-build'
alternative, a standard diamond configuration interchange and a modified diamond
interchange. The EA states that the modified diamond was developed in response to the
Q
0
A
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
.
`gQnificant number of wetlands located in the immediate project vicinity' In EPAs review
of the traffic data, both the current and future conditions, a full diamond interchange was
not justified based on an acceptable LOS for eastbound and westbound turning
movements (2005 LOS A & 2030 LOS B) and potentially increased project costs.
The evaluation of a full range of alternatives was not provided in the EA,
including other traffic system management (TSM) measures (e.g., Full signalizadon),
increased turning lanes options, and improved line-of-sight options and roadway. .
improvements for NC 242 and US 74. From the photographs provided in Figure 4A, the
Facing north' photograph, there appears to be,a change of elevation at US 74 (crest in, the
roadway) that would make crossing,traffic movements potentially unsafe. However,
there could be options and alternatives that.would reduce concems for safety'(i.e.,
Accidents) at this intersection that were not fully considered. The NCDOT recognizes
this issue on Page I1 of the EA as the'proposed design speed for NC 242 will be 50 mph
due to the severity of the horizontal curve radius and the constraints of the vertical
alignment. NCDOT should examine what other improvements could be made to address
these deficiencies without constructing an entire new interchange.
The EA did not provide a `systemid evaluation of nearby traffic routes and other
intersections along US_74/NC 130 that would represent a comparative analysis for other
potential interchange locations that would have potentially less environmental (i.e.,
Natural resource) impacts. The limitation of the project study area appears to have `pre-
determined the range of alternatives studied in detail. EPA does not agree that the
preference for a modified diamond interchange over a standard or full diamond
interchange is substantiated `avoidance and minimizatiod (i.e., 9.4 acres of wetlands and
366 linear feet of stream impact vs'. 12.7 acres of wetlands and 119 linear feet of stream
impact, respectively).
EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA consider and examine a,full range of
re--sonable alternatives prior to making aNEPA decision.
Project Impacts:
The EA includes summary tables (S-1 and 1) and a description of the project.
impacts to human and natural resources. Terrestrial forest impacts are not included in
either Table S-1 or Table 1. Table 8 on Page 26 of the EA includes an estimated area of
terrestrial communities within the project area. The estimates in this table are based on
the length and width of the entire study area. Table 8 also provides the maximum
potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. EPA notes that Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods, Cypress-Gum Swamp and Pine Flat are included in the
estimates (i.e., 1.42, 2.15 and 6.74 acres, respectively). EPA cannot ascertain the
difference between the summation of these wetland type forest communities and the
projected jurisdictional wetland impacts of 9.4 acres. EPA notes the comments on Page
25 of the EA regarding the `entire community of Cypress-Gum Swamp within the project
study area is jurisdictional wetlands and `portions of the Pine Flat are within jurisdictional
wetlands'.
`Table 8 also indicates that there are 2.83 acres of impact to'cropland and 2.73
acres to'maintained-disturbed areas. Tables S-1 and 1 indicate that there is 0 impact to
prime farmlands. There is no Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) analysis
concerning potential impacts to farmlands that may be prime, unique or of State-wide or
local importance. Page 14 of the EA provides general statistical information on the
importance of agriculture and agribusiness.in Columbus County. EPA requests that a
prime farmland analysis per FPPA and Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
657 be, performed.
EPA notes that there may be an affect (May Affect-Not Likely to Adverse Affect)
on the endangered Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) representative, NCDOT has not asked for a concurrence on this
determination. This determination and consultation with FWS should be completed
before'a final NEPA decision is made for the proposed project.
The EA indicates that there will be 9.4 acres of jurisdictional wetland impacts and
366 linear feet of stream impact. Considering the scope of the proposed project, EPA has
substantial environmental concerns for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the statement on Page 30 of the EA that, avoidance of
the stream and wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these resources in all
quadrants surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection. Pleaseaefer to the
aforementioned discussion on detailed study alternatives and the limited project study
area.
Regarding the discussion on minimization on Page 30, EPA does not believe that
NCDOT has demonstrated compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The EA
discuss not discuss the minimization efforts to bridge wetlands, utilize engineering
controls such as retaining walls or the steepening of side slopes in wetland areas. The
Green Sheets', project commitments is'blank' and NCDOT states that there are currently
no special commitments for this project. NCDOT includes the change of the'initial
design of a full diamond interchange into a modified diamond configuration as its only
minimization measure.
The discussion concerning compensatory mitigation is also vague and not
consistent with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Page 31:"-will be requested [EEP] to
provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project if necessary'). EPA could not ascertain any
reason why compensatory mitigation would not be necessary for 9.4 acres of
jurisdictional wetland impacts. This project as currently planned will require an
Individual Permit (IP) under Section 404 and compensatory mitigation is required unless
avoidance and minimization measures significantly reduce or eliminate the estimated
impacts.
O
O
O
O
O
•
4
•
O
b
•
O
O
O
•
•
a
a
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. EPA recommends that NCDOT and FHWA consider re-evaluating the
transportation benefits of this project as currently designed verses the significant impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands and streams.
EPA does not concur with the discussion concerning indirect and cumulative
impacts in Section 3.g. of the EA. Construction of anew interchange at this location
could promote localized development in and around the new interchange. With two of
the quadrants relatively un-impacted from the modified' diamond configuration there
could be development pressure to site new businesses in these areas and along the main
roadways. Indirect and cumulative impacts to the wetlands and water quality to Cow
Branch could result from increased development. EPA requests that this issue be further
examined by NCDOT before a final NEPA decision is made.
United States Department of the Interior
Aph e loos
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 T:<:?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 3, 2008
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the proposed interchange at the
intersection of US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway) and NC 242 (Hanes Lennon
Highway) in Columbus County, North Carolina (TIP No: R-4900). These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
For a project of this scope, 9.4 acres-of wetland impacts is significant. However, it appears that
the recommended alternative (modified diamond interchange) and efforts to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands have reduced the impact to the extent practical. Since the project area is
already affected by the existing intersection, wildlife habitat impacts will be limited to the direct
loss within the project footprint. No significant additional habitat fragmentation effects are
expected.
There are six federally protected species listed for Columbus County - red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum), Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa), Cooley's meadowrue,
(Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). NCDOT has
determined that the project will have no effect on all these species except the wood stork.
NCDOT has determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood
stork. The Service has not yet been requested to concur with this determination. At this time we
do not have any concerns regarding federally listed species.
The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
?'' Pete Bent m
Field Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor; NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC -
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES 08-0284
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Columbus
-Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name US DOT & NC DOT Type of Project Proposed interchange at
the intersection of US
74/NC 130 (Andrew
Jackson Hwy) and NC 242
? The applicant should be advised that plans (Hanes Lennon Hwvl
and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required-by 15A.NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone]. J
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of _ feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation tection at (252)
726-6827. `-
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at.[phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in.order.to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project. .
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
® For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Jim McRight PWSS 4/2108
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURALRESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name US DOT & NC DOT Type of Project
Comments provided by:
Regional Program Person
® Regional Supervisor for Public.Water Supply Section
? Central office program person
Project Number
08-0284
County
Columbus
Proposed interchange at
the intersection of US
74fNC 130 (Andrew
Jackson HWY) and 1,4C '242
(Hanes Lennon Hwy_
Date 4/02/2008
Name Debra Beno - Wilmington RO
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health'
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program'.
Response (check all applicable):
No objection to project as proposed
A ? No comment

insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
APR 0
4 2008

9
q
y2008
t`
'

r
o
a

Public Water SUPPIY aecuu"
for the
D
EnvirO Vsoon of Environmental Health
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•ansponalion Permitting Unit
W50 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
qVrone: 919.733.1786 / FAX [phone] / Internal: htto//h2o.enr.stale.nc.us/ncvvetlands
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recydedll0 % Post Consumer Paper

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
I April 3, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, DENR Office of Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit /??
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed interchange at the
intersection of US 74/NC 130 and NC 242, Columbus County, Federal Aid Project No.
NHF-74(78), State Project No. 40224.1.1, TIP No. R-4900, DENR Clearinghouse No.
08-0284.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated received March 31, 2008. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
1. This project is being planned with input from DWQ and other resource agencies. As a participating
team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. Cow Branch is class C; Sw, waters of the State. DWQ is concerned with sediment and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. DWQ
requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management
practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
General Comments:
The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3.. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoid)
0
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream: In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential. impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004. -
8. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts,' including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
9. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
o, .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water,quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum'extent'practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion. of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
14. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do. not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
15. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and.root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.

20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work-area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to-
prevent excavation in flowing water.
23. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations, prior to permit
approval.
24. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
25. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
26. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone].
cc: Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field.Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
Kathy Matthews, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
A
O
8
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
•
O
i
•
•
t
I ,
Q North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Plighway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 23, 2008
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (-NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed Interchange at the Intersection of US 74/NC
130 and NC 242, Columbus County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-4900, SCH
Project No. 08-0284
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Enviroamemai Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes an interchange at the intersection of US 74/NC 130 and NC 242.
NCDOT has identified a modified diamond interchange as their preferred alternative. According
to documentation in the EA this alternative design minimize impacts to wetlands within the
project area.
During final design NCDOT should.consider options such as: reducing median widths,
steepened side slops, turd "tightening" acceleration and deceleration ramps to minimize impacts
to stream and wetlands where practicable. At this tune we concur with the EA for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we can be of any further assistance please call me
at [phone],
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: .[phone] • Fax. [phone]
Fn CCQC07CGTC QC C-CT OO07/C7/b0

Menlo 2 April 23, 2008
•
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlifc• Service, Raleigh
Rob Ridings, DWQ, Raleigh
Richard Spencer, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Wilmington i
Chris Militscher, EPA
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

v0 3E)Cd 6E868Z56i6 89:91 800Z/EZ/b0 •
•
Appendix C
Merger Process Forms
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
•
•
•
O
•
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name & Description:
TIP Project No.:
Federal Aid Project No.:
WBS Element: _
Proposed Interchange at the Intersection
of US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway) near
Evergreen, Columbus.County
R-4900
NHF-74(78)
40224.1.1
The Merger Project Team has concurred on this date of August 20, 2008, on the following
measures for Avoidance and Minimization for TIP Project R-4900: "
• Avoidance
As noted in the Environmental Assessment, complete avoidance of the stream and
wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these resources in three of the quadrants
surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection.
Signalization and traffic calming techniques' were considered as potential
avoidance measures, but were dismissed as viable options because they would not
permanently-solve the safety problems. In addition, they were not in line with the long
term vision for this facility. Given that US 74 is planned to be upgraded to an interstate
facility with full control of access in the future, options were limited for choosing
alternatives.
Minimization Efforts
• The standard diamond interchange was revised to. a modified diamond
interchange. The ramp in the northwest quadrant was eliminated to reduce
impacts to a gum-cypress swamp wetland that had a higher quality rating than the
one in the northeast quadrant. The ramp in the southeast quadrant was also
eliminated in order to minimize wetland impacts.
• The alignment of the proposed interchange was shifted away from the existing
alignment in order to maintain traffic during construction and to prevent the
existing culvert under US 74 from being affected. Impacting the culvert would
lead to greater impacts to the stream and adjacent wetlands.
1
,

.• A two span bridge is currently proposed for the interchange, as opposed to a
single span bridge. A.single span bridge would avoid constructability issues that
stem from placing a bridge pier in the vicinity of the existing culvert; however,
the depth of the bridge superstructure (girders) and the height of the fill would be
increased, thus increasing the horizontal footprint of the fill roadway in the
wetland areas: Also, with a two span bridge, the lateral ditch to the south that
-runs parallel to US 74 canbe spanned.
• Based upon NCDOT's site investigation, the culvert on NC 242 at Cow Branch
was used as a control to begin the construction limits. The proposed roadway
improvements along NC 242 begin south of the existing culvert, which eliminates
the need for a culvert extension in this environmentally sensitive area.
• Although 2:1 slopes in a wetland area are NCDOT's standard, the soils on this
site are sandy.. NCDOT is using 3:1 slopes in all wetland areas for this project,
which is standard practice for projects east of I-95.
• The ramps and loops on this design have been tightened to reduce impacts to the
wetlands for this site. • Compensatory mitigation will be required for the wetland impacts on this project.
The $70,000 allotted for mitigation in the TIP is a placeholder and does not reflect
the actual cost of mitigation.
USACE NCDOT
FHWA USFWS `
NCWRC USEPA
/{/ 6e11
NCDWQ NCDCR

2
O,
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Appendix D
USFWS Concurrence Letter
4
0
O
O
O'
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4
O
O
O
O
•
w-og
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 24636-3726
August 11, 2008
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service. Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of July 29, 2008 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed conversion of the existing at-grade intersection to a
grade-separation at the intersection of US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway) and NC 242
(Hanes Lennon Highway) in Columbus County (TIP No. R4900) may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered wood stork (Mycteria americans).. NCDOT has also
determined that the project will have no effect on al] other listed species. These comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a May 29, 2007 survey did not reveal any wood storks or
wood stork nests. However, during a subsequent site visit in August 2007, a wood stork was
observed flying through the project area. No foraging behavior was observed. Based on
available information, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork. In addition, we concur that the project
will have no effect on all other federally listed species. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in
this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this
identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
n
t
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wihnington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

•
•
t
f
\1orth Carolina .
Division of Water Quality _ Stream Identification Fonn, Version 3.1
Date: '] I a(t Ib 7 Project: - 10C) Latitude: 3 y, 3yZf3
Evaluator. - 1TnTbke1Cf fERM site: u Longitude: _ 7g, 29 q7 q
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 19 1

If z 19 or perennial It z 30
County:
C

blurt us Other
e.g

. OuedName:

L?fUs2?
A. Geomo hold (Subtotal =?)
1'. Continuous bed and bank se"r? INS' InIIINM?,@11 'N'w..deraate' ro?9a??'iV'f
0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 ( 2 3
3. In-channel sWcbire: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soll texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain : O 1 1 2 3
6. Deposilional bars or benches D 1 (2 3
7. Braided channel bs 1 2 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits D 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headads l0 1 2 3
11. Grade controis 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 - 1 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented

evidence.
a.. ^
o 0
Yes = 3
...o. ?? ?.a?o ..?.?..G o.o . m., e.cu, eav u/rsI wsuuns m manual
R Hviiminnv LRuhtntal = `T 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 46 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or orovrin season I 1 I 2 3
16. Le eflflter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes
C. Bidlogv (Subtotal = Jr b 1
2e. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 D
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 - 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 ',. 2 3
24. Fish D 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 - 1.5
26. Macmbenthos (note diversity and abundance) D 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; penphyton 0 1 2 3
? 26. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. D 0.5 1 1.5
29 . W etland plants in streambed
b FAC = 0.5: FACW = 0.75; OBL =(1.5 SAV = 2A Other = 0
.._.. - .- - .,...,.. p...,c.,ua m up.anu plants, item ze lotuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland Plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional no =s.) Sketch:
v
v

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Sox 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
October 20, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
0
101,
r7
WfT?N?F? OS aRM qq,o/IS
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed interchange at US 74 and NC
242 in Columbus County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-4900). These comments provide scoping
information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16U.S.C.
661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http:Hiie-es.fws.eov/es/countvfr.IltMI .
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates historical
occurrences of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) near the

project vicinity. If suitable habitat still occurs at or near the project area, surveys should be
conducted.for this species. For other federally listed species in the county, the use of the
NCNHP datashould' not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the
project site. The NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed
species and does not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed
species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in,
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate -a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including adiscussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Enuineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;

6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts. .
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
? 1 1
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 7, 2005
?6-3)
0C,T
LYNDO TIPpi
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Brian Wrenn
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Directory Ll/D
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Columbus County, Proposed Interchange at US 74 and NC 242,
Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-74(78), WBS No. 40224.1.1,
TIP Project No. R-4900.
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed interchange at US 74 and NC 242.
The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2009 and construction in fiscal year 2011.
Attached for your review and comments are the seeping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A seeping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by November 18, 2005. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment will be prepared for this
project. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Charles R. Cox, PE, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 301. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE.' WWWNCOOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 2 7699-1 548
,, ?.:

\\ Evergreen
2t
1574

242>
cl,

\74, I

571
\
\
-
SR-1512
? X30.
242
5:2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
whs r• rn t.
o u m =ur 5 i - FEET 4 k.:
c
'
;1000 2000 x'3000`

p 200 400';600 800
" METERS t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
.
] DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
O
? PROTECT DEVELOPMENT AND
i ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
,
CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE AT
D ?? US 74 & NC 242
//
?/,? S COUNTY
] '?f Q R-4900

005 FIGURE 1
ti?ll E
wruSgND STORMWAER S'R4NCN
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O
Y
r
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Brian L. Wrenn, NCDWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Request for Comments for the Proposed Interchange at US 74 and NC 242 in Columbus
County, Federal Aid No. NHF-74(78), WBS No. 40224.1.1, TIP Project No. R-4900,
State Clearinghouse Project No. 06-0119
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. After a preliminary review, DWQ has identified the following named streams
located within the project study area:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification Stream Index Number
Cow Branch Lumber C; Sw 14-27-6
This project may have impacts to wetlands, streams, and other surface waters associated with Cow
Branch. DWQ has the following comments:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Cow Branch are Class C; Sw waters of the State. It appears that Cow Branch has large riverine
wetland systems that parallel the stream through the project area. DOT should design interchange
alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to these riverine wetlands as much as possible.
General Comments:
1. DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of
impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical.
2. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
3. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream and for impacts of greater than one acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(3)),
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal OpportuniyAlf rmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
November 4, 2005
Page 2
4. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
6. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
7. DWQ prefers spanning structures for road crossings of streams and wetlands. If applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
8. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation
in flowing water.
9. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are
met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Brian Wrenn 919-733-5715.
cc: Dave Timpy, Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Gary Jordan, US FWS
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Chris Militscher, US EPA
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
h Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
mje Number. cainty. Dve Received: Dv<Respome Due (&m Eesdtine):
r)1") -If) /T 9 C6latvhu-S 10 -/ ??' -0-5
,is project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ,(Air ? Soil & Water o Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville )(Water o Coastal Management
? Mooresville
.. t Groundwater XWildlife 1 ? Water Resources
10i?v,s \!. ?. St t1.
? Raleigh a Land Quality Enginecr A Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources o Solid Waste Mgmt
(Wilmington o Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem Barks & Recreation ? Other
X Water Quality
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-0®Region: Dale: lo-Housc Reviewer/Ageory: ..
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
P Insufficient information to complete review
u other (specify or attach comments)
O IT 1 9 2005
aAA?? STORE FRB
?WCH
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs

.. ..scare ? QC+,,
zoos
C tv S O
STATE OF FORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?? (19 SZb?4'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration ?/ pp
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director (- /C
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Columbus County, Proposed Interchange at US 74 and NC 2421
Federal-Aid Project No. NTIF-74(78), WBS No. 40224.1.1,
TIP Project No. R-4900.
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed interchange at US 74 and NC 242.
The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2009 and construction in fiscal year 2011.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by November 18, 2005. If you would like to attend the seeping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment will be prepared for this
project. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Charles R. Cox, PE, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone]. Ext. 301. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWWNCOOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
S

Evergreen
]4

2?2 IN

v
?
?? SR 1512
\ '? /
'3<r T?\ tdy \\

at
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o u m a_u 5
cc FEET
- , i " 0 1000 '-
-'2000
3000
.
.
- 0 200 400 :600 800
METERS '.? r:: ?,
1 i NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
i OF TRANSPORTATION
i t DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
•
: c PROTECT DEVELOPMENT AND
1 , ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
i
CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE AT
US 74 & NC 242
COLUMBUS COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-4900

FIGURE I

Proposed Interchange at the Intersection of
US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway)
Columbus County
Federal Aid.Project. NHF-74(78)
WBS Element 40224.1.1
NIP PROJECT R-4900
. .. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)-
APPROVED:
8 P
ate Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
9130/a6 ?zy 64, .
Date J? John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Administrator
ederal Highway Administration Q?L?O
11, / 1 6 2n r"J

?rr??
CCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
January 12,
Dr. Greg Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act with
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS for Proposed improvements to intersection of US 74 and NC 242 in
Columbus County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-74(78), State Project No. 40224.1.1, TIP No. R-4900.
NCDWQ Project No. 20091149
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3814 issued to The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) dated January 12, 2010.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
een . Su ins
Director
Attachments
cc: Kim Garvey, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Tyler Stanton, NCDOT PDEA
File Copy
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:02o.enr.state.nc.us/ncweUands/
Dee Freeman
Secretary
One -
thCarohna
Nor
Natura!!ff
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
401 Water Quality Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (and NEUSE/TAR-
PAMLICO/CATAWBA/RANDLEMAN/JORDAN) BUFFER RULES, and ISOLATED WETLANDS
PERMIT Pursuant to IWGP100000 - when applicable) with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and
95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Regulations in
15 NCAC 2H .0500 . This certification authorizes the NCDOT to impact 7.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in
Columbus County. The project shall be constructed pursuant to the application dated received October 27, 2009.
The authorized impacts are as described below:
Wetland Impacts in the Lumber River Basin
Permanent Fill
ac Excavation
ac Mechanized Clearing
ac Total Wetland Impact
ac Wetland Mitigation
Re uired ac
3.61 0.02 0.07 3.70 7.40
0.12 0 0.05 0.17 0.34
V 1.84 0 0.08 1.92 3.84
0.27 0 0.08 0.35 0.70
1.40 0 0.17 1.57 3.14
7.24 0.02 0.45 7.71 15.42
Total Wetland Impact for Project: 7.71 acres.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the wetlands of the Lumber River
Basin in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality
Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance
with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application dated received October
27, 2009. Should your project change, you are required to notify the NCDWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. If any additional wetland impacts, or stream impacts, for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet, respectively, additional compensatory mitigation
may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are
required to comply with all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or
local permits before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire on the
same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Corps of Engineers Permit.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 7.71 acres of riparian wetlands is required. We understand that you have
chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands through the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), and that the EEP has agreed to implement the mitigation for the project. EEP has
indieated in a letter dated August 29, 2009 that they will assume responsibility for satisfying the fedem! Clean Water
Act compensatory mitigation requirements for the above-referenced project, in accordance with the Tri-Party MOA
signed on July 22, 2003 and the Dual-Party MOA signed on April 12, 2004
2. Unless otherwise approved in this certification, placement of culverts and other structures in open waters, streams,
and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater
than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary
erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or
streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to
provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ. If this condition is
unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact NCDWQ
for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
3. All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1, unless otherwise
authorized by this certification.
4. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as
possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream
channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
5. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed.
6. For any streams being impacted due to site dewatering activities, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
7. The stream channel shall be excavated no deeper than the natural bed material of the stream, to the maximum
extent practicable. Efforts must be made to minimize impacts to the stream banks, as well as to vegetation responsible
for maintaining the stream bank stability. Any applicable riparian buffer impact for access to stream channel shall be
temporary and be revegetated with native riparian species.
8. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to
surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
9. During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
10. The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing shall not be modified.
Disturbed floodplains and streams shall be restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
11. The use of rip-rap above the Normal High Water Mark shall be minimized. Any rip-rap placed for stream
stabilization shall be placed in stream channels in such a manner that it does not impede aquatic life passage.
12. The Permittee shall ensure that the final design drawings adhere to the permit and to the permit drawings
submitted for approval.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures from
the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the introduction of other pollutants into the stream.
15. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
16. No rock, sand or other materials shall be dredged from the stream channel except where authorized by this
certification.
17. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
18. The permittee and its authorized agents shall conduct its activities in a manner consistent with State water quality
standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other
appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If NCDWQ determines that such standards or laws are not being
met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that
further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, NCDWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification.
19. A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be maintained on the construction site at all times. In addition,
the Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
20. The outside wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this authorization
shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to areas within the
fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
21. The issuance of this certification does not exempt the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules,
regulations, or ordinances that may be imposed by other government agencies (i.e. local, state, and federal) having
jurisdiction, including but not limited to applicable buffer rules, stormwater management rules, soil erosion and
sedimentation control requirements, etc.
22. The Permittee shall report any violations of this certification to the Division of Water Quality within 24 hours of
discovery.
23. Upon completion of the project (including any impacts at associated borrow or waste sites), the NCDOT Division
Engineer shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of Completion Form" to notify NCDWQ when all work
included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
24. Native riparian vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs native to your geographic region) must be reestablished within
the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.
25. There shall be no excavation from, or waste disposal into, jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification. Should waste or borrow sites, or access roads to waste or borrow sites, be
located in wetlands or streams, compensatory mitigation will be required since that is a direct impact from road
construction activities.
26. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all
construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased
borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
27. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters unless otherwise approved by
this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in criminal
and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made
conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon the
expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within sixty
(60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written petition conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have
the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 12th day of January 2010
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CY Coleen H. Sullins
R Director
WQC No. 3814

MICHAEL F. EASLEY a
GOVERNOR
t
•T

.. sTM
STATE OF NORTH _CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Richard Spencer
+ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
October 3, 2007
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0
Enclosed is a vicinity map (Figure 1), an aerial photo showing the potential wetland
boundaries (Figure 2), Soil Map (Figure 3), .Approved Jurisdictional Determination
Forms, USACE Routine etland Determination Forms, and NCDWQ Stream
Identification Forms for T R-4900 n Columbus County. The proposed project involves
the conversion of an existing at-grade intersection to a grade-separation at the intersection
of US 74 and NC 242.
Please contact me at [phone] or send email to [e-mail] to arrange
a field verification meeting at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
0
yler Stanton, /l !I
Environmental Biologist l (/ (?
f??U V
Enclosures (6)
I
Cc: File R-4900 / V
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
pa4?,?4?f
a
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
I
Map Unit Legend
Columbus County, North Carolina
Map
symbol Map unit name
Au6' _ .`Autryville.sand, Oto 3,percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Js Johnston loam, frequently flooded
Re Rains fine sandy loam
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 02/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
w ET-Pi4b N EA
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 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Stwe:NC County/parish/borough: Columbus City:
Center coordinates of site flat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 78.9962° S, Long. 34.3958°.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cow Brunch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203
® 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 we recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPL)():
S Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Eg Field Determination. Date(s): 7/26/07
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There p'pea 'to be "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]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Cow Branch appears to have sufficent depth to support small boat traffic that may be used for commerce such as bird-
watching, fishing, and/or hunting.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There seta"d etTceind "waters of the U.S. ° within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR pan 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
s Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1200 linear feet: 1000 width (ft) and/or 2.75 acres.
Wetlands: 40 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 49$Z3Delioeatidn. efiual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Q Potentiallyjurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For proposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least -seasonally'
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Yes 5.19
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland provides for flood retention,
sediment and toxin retention, wildlife habitat.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook.. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if my), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.1):
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of signiflcant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
?a TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
21 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. -
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
is Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section I1I.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
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:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
N1 Tributary waters: linear feet . width (ft).
El Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RP W 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: Wetland is a source of hydrology for the channel.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB 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: 5.19acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
01 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 a rejurisidictional. 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 ajurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Q 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):"
Iffl which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
1B from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
t? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
a! Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
ru Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 111.13.6 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 Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
51 Wetlands: acres.
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).
Q 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):
Q. Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Q 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 forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
I Lakes/ponds: acres.
R Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
?D 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: .
xs U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
??a' U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina..
sa' National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
Z State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
® 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):mrsid 2004.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Q Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Y?? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Q Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
WETLAMM NW ? N E Q
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 l: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. 'DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Columbus City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 78.9018° S, Long. 34.3988° ?.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cow Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Q Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associatedwith this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 7/26/07
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. BHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ear'to "navigable waters ojthe U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (P HA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required] -
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Cow Branch appears to have sufficent depth to support small boat traffic that may be used for commerce such as bird-
watching, fishing, and/or hunting.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There reiadBlsre.not "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
® TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
N Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
® Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1200 linear feet: 1000 width (ft) and/or 2.75 acres.
Wetlands: 40 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: V997 elides b- Miinual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supponed by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least
"seasonally-e.g., typically 3 months).
r Supporting documentation is presented in Section III. F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section II1.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Cow Branch.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Cow Branch appears to have sufficent depth to support small boat traffic that may
be used for commerce such as bird-watching, fishing, and/or hunting.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW .
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands identified in the ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION Forms w/ Plot IDs NW & NEB, directly abut Cow Branch.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 'c i9,
Drainage area: ak=is
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through ,'ckxList tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are HER EAR river miles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify flow route to TNW': Cow Branch flows to Porter Swamp which flows to Lumber River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 2nd.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that anolvl'
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: cklinist.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
?Bedrock ?Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: black water.
presence of run/rif c/ ool complexes. Explain: none.
Tributary geometry: iti f-tst
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: . c?"kist -
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ,ic `Ist
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: o ? 'Ist. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: .iekiUst. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to detemt
,t?]"- High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
?. Riparian corridor: Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-
Flow is: is ist. Explain:
Surface flow is: . e ` §t
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 1ik is . Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW,
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separatedbyberm/barner. Explain:
(d) Pmximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are ie rs river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ,'& -aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Jas .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ,rek is floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: -
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: ie Zis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts) (Y/N) Size (in acresl
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the now
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacentwetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY): -
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
® TNWs: linear feetl,000width (ft), Or, 2.75acres.
® Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: 40acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Q Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
IRE Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
`n Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
E Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
t» Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Q 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.
e
Provide estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
Asa general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdictional tributary remainsjurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Q Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
kt 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):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
;4 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:
'See Footnote # 3.
° 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 Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
149 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
M Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Q Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): _
Q If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Weiland 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 ofjurisdiction 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).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres. .
Q 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 forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
IN', Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
12 Lakes/ponds: acres.
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
4?• 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.
eu Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
O. Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? 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:
g+, National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
® State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
ra Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
® Applicable/supporting case law:
wn Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
tJMNNDS SW) SEAT ?SEg
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):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/bomugh: Columbus City:
. Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 78.8987° E, Long. 34.3946° ?V.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cow Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203
0 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:
Field Determination. Date(s): 7/26/07
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS"
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There oeattoabe "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]
ED Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
13 Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Cow Branch appears to have sufficent depth to support small boat traffic that may be used for commerce such as bird-
watching, fishing, and/or hunting.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There eEe.addkacemot "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
® TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1200 linear feet: 1000 width (ft) and/or 2.75 acres.
Wetlands: 40 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 987r ilinea ibii'iMatfiial
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
E0 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supponed by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below.
x For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section I LD.L; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW -
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands identified in the ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION Forms w/ Plot IDs NW & NEB, directly abut Cow Branch.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section I11.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 54 cre"s
Drainage area: Li
Average annual rainfall: 50.2 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.6 inches.
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through g tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are river miles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
M
Project waters are ess
aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
Identify flow route to TNW': Flows along roadside ditch to an unnamed tributary to Cow Branch.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Tributary stream order, if known: I st.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)'
Tributary is: ® Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Roadside ditch.
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 1-2 feet
Average side slopes: ff.T,.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: wetland plants 50%
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: low flow.
Presence of run/rifflel not corn lexes. Explain: none.
Tributary geometry: 'alive -estrai b
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): I %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: easdna flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 0 {qr t?reater)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: M. Explain findings: iron-oxidizing bacterial present indicating groundwater.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
® OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
® water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.r Explain:
If factors other than the OH WM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: 19
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics: -
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
-(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:23.25acres
Wetland type. Explain:Non-riverine forested.
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
(b) General Flow Relationshin with Non-TN
W:
Flow is: o. low . Explain:
Surface flow is: of kesent
Characteristic:
Subsurface flow: Ed. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are (or ess river miles from TNW.
Project waters are (or -ess aerial straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: elan oomavieable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 00 r.500.?.ean floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: N/A.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Forested needle-leaved 80-90%.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Provides terrestrial wildlife habitat.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 23.25 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Yes 12.33 Yes - 10.71
Yes 0.21
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland provides for flood retention,
sediment and toxin retention, wildlife habitat.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TINNY). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 11I.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
'pt TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Q Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
to Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.6. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
E0 Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
'f Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
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: Wetland is a source of hydrology for the channel.
10 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: 23.25acres.
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 TN W 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.
Q Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they we 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.s
As a general role, the impoundment of ajurisdictional 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):"'
19 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.
Q which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
® Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote N 3.
'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 Aa Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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:
Q Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q 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.
Q. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Ian 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 ofjurisdiction 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).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres.
® Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Q 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 forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
!tx Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
trp 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/dehireation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
c1 Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Q Corps navigable waters' sandy:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
"3! U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina..
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):mrsid 2004.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
is Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Q Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1 Site: R-'44)0 Date: / 028 D (o
Applicant / Owner: NCDD i County: mt4 S
Investigator: S?vrrinn / ( i P r State: C
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: w,:r
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yec
No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? _
Iles No-/ Plot ID: Al
1l
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
-Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum indicator Dominant Piant Species Stratum Indicator
?r,ic? m?r ?rilL a -I- AC+ g,
2.7 ?ocler tirnn ft 1 o i Z P 10.
3. karma (?1u5Yi5 ?t _ Ply- py 11
4.Arpj to hru rh M EAE 12.
5.rsea (gal ,54ri _? Wit, 13.
6.. ??
EWt 14.
7. -'Lfj)rrl hQtr L/atS H 1 15.
B.- (xYwutt lrorvrn?a_ )-I GMpI+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 08L, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAGOBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
- Other Prima Indicators:
undated

No Recorded Data Avail
bl -Saturated in Upper 12"
? W
M
a
e ater
arks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _?Z Sediment Deposits
_i?Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/ /A (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: , Y2_ in.) _ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
?
?
WaterStained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: _ oeal Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test "
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unlt Name
(Series and Phase): U ( TFG"/ NSF r Fier ,.fly Fl d.t Drainage Class: '• A-1 4 (j, l
Taxonomy (Subgroup):. 44-'t ('Ji { "'AjA' f Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ Nom
Profile Description;
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Colors Motile Colors Mottle
lMunaell Moist)
(Munson Moist) Abundance/Contrast
-1 A_ r a
3 '7 5
- i'l+ _ 7vv all
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Texture, Concretions,
Structure. etc
s11# cry
Histosol - Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ SuMdic Odor -Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis
Aquie Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydrie Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Llsted on National Hydric Soils Llst
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes? No
Hydric Solis Present? Yes l/ No
rcemarKs: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 WE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: ?9t'?
Applicant/Owner: C 01T
Investigator: n; n / ,i Date: )o('
County: (?u.vlnu
State: NP

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes_ No ?
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ?
(explain on reverse If needed) Community ID:P
Transact ID:
Plot ID: (
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Rn,e< C 9.
2.-erudPmi,.rLCrznri-'li.a GA('-f- 10.
3. qj crr we nr" Af FAC 11.
4. Muse o lbri is ,5 - 12.
6. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). lDh7v
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other _ Inundated
/ -Saturated In Upper 12"
? No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N !Y_ (in.)
_ Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil:
iHRIC? in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map unit Name
(Series and Phase): Go /y? //
( *1 G0141,1
-/I- "J ?
O°
o-Z? S ?rJ
Drainage Class: 4N/, "/in,/
Taxonomy (Subgro up):
?Ler .c &&&c I ??
1"K/
G
- ?
n
C Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No--L
Profile Descrlotion•
Depth
inches Horizon Matrix Colons
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Molsti Mottle
Texture, Concretions,
/-/7 A AbundaneofContrast Structure. etc
I D YR 4 w
rvl nl/r? ?
l

fi -?-
x ?
/4 nQi .-
? -
n/14
- S+?du_(!a,-?twm
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol - Concretions
Histie Epipedon - _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
Sulftdic Odor -Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hyddc Solis List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Solis List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? _ Yes _ No ?
Hydric Solis Present? Yes _ No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ?/
rcemarKs: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
upon the criteria set forth in the
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: L-tIQC Date:
-/s nir'j
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT _
County: o! v,zu=
Investigator:- Le-,r no . , State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No X Plot ID: f I r A: W
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indica
t
or Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator
1. ?it U nrnV OY ^ UYn ^ - i th //
7
rJ
/7LT g
2. )v. rr„ r,i of o, 10.
_M nnr„\.o ?, n .a i FHCUt 11.
4.?1- "nr'Mc? F/tCt 12.
5. (PI r?u FA 13.
N
6: Luray use. a /jCU/ 14.
7. F?(%ia !° h-r. a- 1 GfFL(/ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 00 th
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
?/ - -Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (In.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) - Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name

?a? Qu; 5 f
(Series and Phase):`

f [ ac
'
?
Drainage Class:`
"'
y
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?? iM.t /?? P¢?aG{c Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ N04

Profile Description, -
Depth Matrix Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle colors Mottle
Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure
etc

A_ IUY(??I ,
.
jou -?/I
/
-
n(v---8?2c\ a?)dir lozn?
r.u.J II Qf
=
r.u
?r?'!
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor _ Concretions
- High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-
Aquic Moisture Regime -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINOTInN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?. Yes ? No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No _7? Within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No - -
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: ' O J Date: ??a /

Applicant/ Owner: NCDOT
Investigator: (ac n? <; _. nom
County: C„ (,,.m6)ac
State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Y No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No x Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No y Plot ID:J) 1
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicat
r Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
tt
1. (T _(n L= /P TV o
2.S?v ar rv „ 9Hc _T L 10.
! AC f 11

4. ii t _.`- S
0)aps /,,c-
-
f?IC .
12.
f? '
5. I ICY a I Aar. ? ?Cu 13.
6.\I, h, ?t(E A _
`J 14.
7.
15.
$' 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). iv,. i
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (]n.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: I =i? (in.) - Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: >I?
(in
) _ Local Soil Survey Data
. FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name rr77?? ^^``
(Series and Phase):`ka' t", Su,,,?., /,14, Drainage Class:--&,!'j,
f ?
A
Taxonomy (Subgroup): f4, ? z 64le< ( Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth
inches Horizon Matrix Colors
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors

(Munsell Moist) Mottle

Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concretions,
s

IZ„ A

?mn rnon tructure et
c.
?, and U I orz m

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histicl
on _ Concretions
fidic Odor Odor
Sul _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-
Reducing Core Regime
Reducing Conditions
-Listed On Local Hydric Soils List

Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No- Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ? Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _ No ? Yes_ No/
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Date:
_J 2 e)
Applicant/ Owner: NCDOT _
County:
Investigator: State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No ? Plot ID: nL j
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. A ? nLA Doman ? A_ 9.
3 Leo nfha, 10.

4. F- 12.
5. 5 a' .•F' 13.
6. ?t S e On a W i 14.
7. SLAV aK-, C? 7t, 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). - 1[7770
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other Inundated
/ Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in
) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
/
. Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name \
(Series v
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup):- f (• C„? fry l>vh • ?? Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) 6 (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
n?
94
D] 5
ta` aSr _ it-it
Hydric Soil Indicators: -
- Histosol - _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -?- No_ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -j- No_ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes y No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site:_ 4,- 41ROO Date: Q I O
Applicant/ Owner: NCDOT County:
Investigator: I) Kno) ?rilu? State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No
- Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Nom Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No 7°
?
Plot ID: n;r vl,r
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Y ntt h'c?. PfAr- 9.
2. lo.
3. Ct 11.
4. SPCA 5 J 12.
5. IY? ?; i[LL Snr; }-L d0- ?_ _PAC, r 13.
6. LeXu14 IAnn r1 nap C-, -Ac' 14.
7. ; Cti -?_Ov F-c rck_ CT_ EK + 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). - V?J`7a
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: D (in.)
Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: NI- tin.) _ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: _
(i Local Soil Survey Data
?
_
n.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name. 1 ` U\ ?l
(Series and Phase): l dill
`J
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): A -l l9Y c A_1e i1,4Ldp- Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No V
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle
Horizon Texture, Concretions,
(inches) -_ (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure
etc

2 ,
.
- - oLjiz X/a rr
I
^"

Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils

Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No Within a Wetland? Yes
N

Hydric Soils Present? Yes _
o
No X
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site:_ t - ? I (1 i
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT Date: /2- / it 06
County: _1, , 1
Investigator: Pe-)Fu i i29, . State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes -No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ?
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No ?
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
'Transact ID:
Plot ID: f w - we-f
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
L
J
1
& T
, "
.
' 5
' W± 9.
2. 'n V. ee T r 10.
3. 6=r r ti , T FAC 11.

5. M . .r . ?,• - u _ FA(-'--t- 13.
6. r-Ac 14.
7. 15.
6. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). - ?dT)z
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks) : Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
}
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: '• ti (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in
) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
. X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
--,)C FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ue?ar`• 5
hhCJtC. fP???j A/I ?Prj ii'G {.''( I ^ Uhh?i /?L/Gn /F ?nn
SOILS
yr `.
Map Unit Name G?
(Series and Phase): ?wry?Av?iyv.^lly < ?

3 5i9DrainageClass: b?e ??,.
i t
{
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 1 ?ei?gL 4'1- q
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

7l L3? ^Y2 I)'L -/?-
/4..

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol - Concretions
- Histic Epipedon
Sulridic Odor - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-
Aquic Moisture Regime -Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
-Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
v Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
"\AICTI ALIrl •1rTI?I.u u..
` 1a 91 LA w"1Gr%lv"FYNI U14
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes L/ No _
Wetland ,H drology Present? Yes ? No _
HydricSsxc`Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ? No_
.DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: U n rl Date:
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County
Investigator: ?tir_ I H State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site, Yes No
- Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes NO
7- Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ Nom- Plot ID: S/
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. L,+, , d - 1o.
3. 5 T ?7 y r1. 7" FI?C 11.
?7 PAC- 12.
5. 13.
6. S di )[?i ^•! -1 41+ 14.
7. 15.
B. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). - I M17,
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Aerial Photographs
- Other
X Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
n/ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >Z? fin
Secondary Indicators:
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: >2
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
?FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name n
(Series and Phase):_?Il?6) M171_11)( '6 d 0p-3'4 J dI4 Drainage Class: kAll
Taxonomy (Subgroup):- Confirm Mapped Type? Yes- No
Profile Descriotion•
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle
inches Horizon tMunsell moist) Texture, Concretions,
nn (Munsell moist) Abundance/contrast Structure. etc.
`I 3 (?'" 1 C yIl_ Z L ?ao?.
//- 9 E sCa? /
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol - Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Red c Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes k No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No Within a Wetland? Yes No kl
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _ No - -
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: IZ - q Q 00
Date: 11-2Y-6(

Applicant/OWner:_NEI)
Investigator: CslJec M.o-aat b
County: Robero 1
State: N c
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: WET
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes_ No
Transact ID:
6
6
4
4M
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No1 -
-
,
-
Plot ID:
_
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. nl„? tw:?lerc ABC` 9.
T-
1
4. ic- 12.
5.lle u _nrta "e fh uc
6. 13.
}?? 14.
7. Sr.,,tlw ra.,.? It urb ? 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). J[n 70
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
Oth Primary Indicators:
er
- / Inundated
_7Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
. Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits -
/ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 3 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: D (in) - Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) Local Sol[ Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
- d?{> cPllcrkd 4 Ier rym4

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):-
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_) tt(M116
f aa. I?Pf Drainage Class:
1 v" ^ar f J Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Descriotiom
Depth Matrix Colors
Inche
f?J_ Horizon _ fMunsell moist) Mottle Colors Mottle `
Texture„ Itc concretions,
(Mansell moist) Abundance/COntrest Structure, . etc. .
Q-" f94 IOYA z/, n./R nr ?ji S;I ee...l
Hydric Soil Indicators:
-Histosol -Concretions
- Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor - High Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
-
_ Aquic Moisture Regime -Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
-Listed On Loral Hydric Solis List
Reducing Conditions
Gl
d -Listed on National Hydric Solis List
eye
or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
VVFTI nnln n l=TCOIIaIAlAT1AK1

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 7 No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 7 No -
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ? No_
upon the criteria set forth in the
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Q - t-PDO Date:
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT
Investigator:
?nsn
- oQ1oz
County: r I
. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? YesNo Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes
Nom Transact ID:
_
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: Q = I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. a i 10

3. 'fir ru:`??'?: at, r` C' .
4. 1'? r?+.?rnver <xuf, '? ACt 12.
5.fi2?2.®rbrn?rx S l.?/i.,/ 13.
6. f ern rR?a esq - C4 14.
7. r?r¢.{.°:,. tnihr? 5'=rvn=??rnr^ ?_ lf?
15.
6' 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). I n a
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_' No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: J (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: I 1 in) - Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil _ (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name \\
(Series and Phase):_ q) &14" 11AAL 5? W ?06 ", Drainage Class: ?noi l cC
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ Nom(
Profile Description,
. Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell moist) Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
L?- ?_ ID Y2 4 ? I C common _
JarAv `r'YiN\
dJMAq o(1 - ? ?
,Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol Concretions -
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
- Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
- Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
_ Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Solis List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No- Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No -
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 100 Date: )Z- 7.0 0/
Applicant/Owner: DOi
. Count In r.,wG
Investigator. `n
QCf uA•!c, Js- -/ State: _ A/11 --
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes I ??Jjjj?111pppppp Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?. Yes N Transact ID:
Is the area a potential: Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: SF Q E Q
_
(If needed, explain on reverse.) I _
VEGETATION
Ddmiham 2I911SoadaL Stratum Indicator
1, 7- DQMhant PI t Species r tum indicator
9
2 if
JA)
4. V
-- 13
- .
fi 4

7. ,5
.
8. 1fi
.

Percent of Dominant Suedes that are DeL, FACW or FAC -
/
iexCiudmo Percent of FAC-t.
-
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
FF Data (Describe in Remarks)
, Lake, or Title Gauge
Photographs
etl Data Available : Wetland Hydrology Intlicators
Primary Intlicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Narks
Drift Lines

ions: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
?' A Secondary Intlicators (2 or more reouired):
ace Water: (in.)
q _ Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
th to Free Water in PiC r t _ Local Soil Survey Data

th to Saturated Soil /1
I _J(_ FAC-Neural Test
(in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
rks:
LAP
B2
Appendix 6 Blank and Example Data Forms

SOILS
LII-ap
Ise). ' r///.??I (,I "4/o iiiiw r, 0-L/ii f?41
my (Subgroup): ? ? I / -/?? nk'P f ?,??
Etufile Description
Depth ?n Matrix Color Mottle Colors
A -- 1 nom- A/ s
E laY2 s?f ?yP-
6
I( L
2. I
it
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Drainage Class: MaJ ?g9/L•nrk'r.
Field Observations -
Canbrm Mappatl Type? Yes
Mottle Abuntlancel Texture, Concretions,
SMICont t Str, lyrr etc
?l. „? ?ahT!}.?
LID ?2
liistosol
Fetic _ Concretions

c Odor
A
K
o
Odori
M
_ High Organic Content in Sudece Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sand
Soils
du
:
o
sture
Rededuu Regime
Reducing Conditions y
_ Listed on Local Flytldc Soils List
C
Gleyatl or LowChr oma Colors _ Listed on National Hydric Sods Let
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydrophync Vegetation Present? ® Plo (Circle)
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes (Qp? (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes .5 Is this Sampling Point Wlthin a Welland? Yes
No
Remarks:
3/92
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
B3

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7 )gLe107 Project: Il _ L.} i JU Latitude:
4. 3,? 78
Evaluator. Site'.
S-faV1iz) Si
. T I Longitude: _ 78 , QOf3
Total Points:
Stream is at lead intermittent %i County:
X 219 or perennial 8239 O? eD.g?. Ouetl Neme: r?l=R(?QLfV
o
morpholopy
total =?)
A0.
oe?a?.
rate,?11
11
nt
d and bank
1
. Co
1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 (Z 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting D 1 2
,
5. Activeirelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bans or benches 0 1
3
7. Braided channel 1 I 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? - 0 2 g
9` Natural levees D 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 g
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1,5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing .
USGS or NRCS map or other documented Yes = 3
evidence,

B. Hydrology (Subtotal= (n )
.,....,,,.,,,.. - ...., .. a, b,
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or arowinq season u
0 I 1
1 2

2 3

I 3
18. Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1 0 0.5 1 0.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0
- 0.5 1 (1 5
19. Hydnc soils (redoxlmorohic features) present? I No = 0 Yes =1.5)
C. Bioloov (Suhtntnl = (n . ?2 t
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 r2) I 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel - 3 12
1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1
1.5
23. Bivalves D 1 2 3
24. Fish
0.5 1

t5
25. Amphibians 0
0 ? 0.5 ? 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) D 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; pedphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxrdlzing bactenatfungus. ( 0 5 1 1
5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
6 .
rAC = 0.5' rACW = 0.1n; OBL =(1 5? SAV - 2.0; Other - t7
i 9n ro
-_ _-..? _. _?._.... „-- o-, uia Presence ai aquapc or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

?
?\?
G

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:5.19aares
Wetland type. Explain:Non-riverine forested.
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TN
W:
Flow is: a to . Explain:
Surface flow is: o3unesen
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: d. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. -Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW.
Project wetlands are oless? river milj m TNW.
Project waters are a(or esss aerial sttai ht miles from TNW.
Flow is from: e a d av `ti er .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 0 - 00- `ear floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: N/A.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Forested needle-leaved 80-90%.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Provides terrestrial wildlife habitat.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 5
Approximately ( 5.19 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
Tributary stream order, if known: I st.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)'
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Roadside ditch.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 1-2 feet
Average side slopes: +
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type)%cover: wetland plants 50%
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks). Explain: low flow.
Presence of run/riffle/ oo] Cora lexes. Explain: none.
Tributary geometry: iv'e. Ivan r. atEt
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: i:a oda iflo
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 0 or `re ei
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:. Res. Explain findings: iron-oxidizing bacterial present indicating groundwater.
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
® water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
tt High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other(list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcmp or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
1
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands identified in the ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION Forms w/ Plot IDs NW & NEB, directly abut Cow Branch.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards forjurisdiction established under Rapaooshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) now, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IH.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a.TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.133 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
0
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 54 T Drainage area: o m
Average annual rainfall: 50.2 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2.6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through R tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are
P
j
t
t river miles from RPW.
i
l
i
h
il
f
m
ers are
ro
ec
wa aer
a
(stra
g
t) m
es
rom TNW.
Project waters are orles
aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
Identify flow route to TNW': Flows along roadside ditch to an unnamed tributary to Cow Branch.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the avid
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Wm-Wb NEA
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):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/bomugh: Columbus City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 78.9962° & Long. 34.3958° VGV.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cow Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lumber River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040203
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
R 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:
Field Determination. Date(s): 7/26/07
SECTION If: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. BHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF.TURISDICTION.
There ea td" "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFA part 329) in
the review area. [Required]
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Cow Branch appears to have sufficent depth to support small boat traffic that maybe used for commerce such as bird-
watching, fishing, and/or hunting.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ai'edant7fane o "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands'directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1200 linear feet: 1000 width (ft) and/or 2.75 acres.
Wetlands: 40 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 987 • elincationlMaaoal
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) 3
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropri ate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this forth, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least -seasonally-
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
Taxonomic Classification of the Soils
Columbus County, North Carolina

Autryville.
Goldsboro
Johnston
Rains
Soil name I Family or higher taxonomic classification
Loamy, siliceous; sutiactive,thermic Arenic Paleudults_ ,
Fine-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Aquic Paleudults
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Cumulic Humaquepts
Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults
Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 02/2312007
This repon shows only the major soils. Others may exist.
Page 1 of 1
Map Unit Legend
Columbus County, North Carolina
III Map
symbol
Map unit name
AuB ' - Autryville sand, .0 to 3.percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Js Johnston loam, frequently flooded - - - -
Re Rains fine sandy loam
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 02/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
Onsite Wetland Verification
W-4704
Improvements (grade separation) to Intersection of US 74
and SR 2210 (Old Kingsdale Road)
December 18, 2007
Project Manager:
Worth Calfee
919-715-7225
[e-mail]
?pn
O
o ?
d
C
v
3

L
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W-4704 Date: 02/07/06
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County: Robeson
Investigator: Stanton / Turchv State: 'NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: UP
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No X Plot ID: SE UP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pasoalum notatum H FACU+ 9.
2. Festuca arundinacea H FAC- 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Coxville laom Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): THERMIC TYPIC PALEAO DULTS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description: ,
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8" A I OYR 4/3 fine sand
8-12+ B 10YR 5/2 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor, -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No mottles in 2 chroma B horizon
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W4704 Date: 02/07/06
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County: Robeson
Investigator: Stanton / Turchy State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: WET.
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: SE WET
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.__Liguidambarstyraciftua T FAC+ 9.
2. LiQustrum sinense S FAC 10.
3. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
6 (tn•) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
,
"
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Coxville laom Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): THERMIC TYPIC PALEAO DULTS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-9" A I OYR 2/1 sandy loam
9-16+ B 10YR 511 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X
No Is the Sampling Point
No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
No-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: W4704 Date: 02/07/06
Applicant I Owner: NCDOT County: Robeson
Investigator: Stanton / Turchv State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No_ Community ID: UP
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes_ No X Plot ID: SW UP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pasaalum notatum H FACU+ 9.
2. Dichanthelium commutatum H FAC 10.
3. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 67
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines -
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >16 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
'
Depth to Saturated Soil: >16 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No Wetland Hydrology indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro Loamy Sand Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): THERMIC AOUIC PALEUDULTS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-91, A 10YR 3/2 fine sandy loam
9-16+ B E 10YR 6/2 10YR 5/8 few clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric.Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No -
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W4704 Date: 02/07/06
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County: Robeson
Investigator: Stanton / Turchv State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: WET
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?. Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: SW WET
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liguidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 9.
2. Lieustrum sinense S FAC 10.
3. Rubus soy. V FAC 11.
4. Pious taeda T FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >8 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
ocal Soil Survey Data
F
Depth to Saturated Soil: 5 (in.) AC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro Loamy Sand Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): THERMIC A UIC PALEUDULTS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8" A 1 OYR 3/1 sandy loam
8-16+ B 10YR 5/3 sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes X No
Yes X No
Yes No -
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
C
N
C

n
n
o?
C
r
0
o ?
3 c
a
•
m
c
T
O

N
m
m
T
O
7
r.
D
n
0
Ms"
1
?I

?!C
a
? w
5VJ i
n
O (D
cn
C
.............

w CO
71
Yl
• 1
I
4

L.
'?. ;? ?, r1? ?. ? 1?'?i'; ` t?;.?,a • ! _ ..,, .?.'2: - ._ \ \ `fir
NN,
41
?oo
l
4 `-
?,
rt
C
C
0
C
C
C
C
A ? i .? __ ,irt Y
? r?-.' e,.vrl
r
ItA-Ak
c T
< cn? ''
(D CL
?F
..
o m
n 't •r?r.
= r
r.
,. ljw

CD
A0.

'
CU ? s
1
jP.
yiyR?

n i F tom.
J ' ~
"Ag
?--? ? ? ? r - ,? Ida t?'i??, " ?y+' ? ,? ? •_? ,?y ? _ -r
4k r
.0 - _ r -
r 91?'
a' ..l+i'Ly j
`L ?.?( • •S•t, ?. 'gym ?_ . '.
4os 7A,
K 1
L, .. ter -? 4r - ?"? :^• ?'
IV,
??
?..?
44
t. ?
Z.... T' yy?? N'} ?1 U 1
' ? ?? yYrh w w ? ° :t
T f Y?' 1k
-46
:?1 t • M +? ? ?L'n
r
•b
?. CS A
-t V`
? ?:.- V m
?M
x ,?
C
c
c
c
C
C

O
u
C
:n
U?
O..
CD
i
r
CD

z ?.

V
? ?
f N
c? -C-ti Gr

>y
?o

fl
C

CD Z
C
<
o L

Q

o ?
CC?
C ?

CD
D
cD
? v v
v
CD

CL
0
77
co

-17
O
0
c
a
C

o?
1 ?
J

O
D
Z
Z
6 I ??
S •?? b\ ? '? p ?? ? a
E?Weeinl."

W - ??

?•?
-- ACDkwnbo",i .
97
`
cam \ ?

1 ? C

roo- \

o ?.

r

i r

J

l i ( VS \

r07
f
N, ,_ \ l I
-

?J-
`? TIP R-4900

Columbus County

Th
d
i
h
i
i
FIGURE 1
- , ,

`` f • - ? `1
e propose
grade-separat
on at t
ntersect
e
on
of US 74/NC 130 (Andre w Jackson Highway) and
N'(' 242 (1{ancs Lennon I Iitghwav) ` `J -- Pt ,wlbytlrMCDor
`......

N 2 1 U
{
I: Vicinity Map
W-4704 Robeson County
Proposed Improvements to Intersection
of US 74 and SR 2210 (Old Kingsdale Rd)
2 Miles SW Lumberton Quadrangle
? ?'"4 TM c°R
9
?O
r
6f Y?cir •nnd'V~