20150024 Ver 1_Application_20150107

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following information:
1. Project Name:_ Replacement Bridge No. 030018 on SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: NCDOT Division 10, Louis Mitchell, P.E.
3. Name of Consultant /Agent:_STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
*Agent Authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related /Previous Action ID number(s):_
5. Site Address: SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek, northeast of Wadesboro, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Wadesboro, NC
8. County:
9. Lat: 34.999443° N _Long: -80.002394'W
10. Quadrangle Name: Wadesboro 1988
11. Waterway:_ Branch of Cedar Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin -Pee Dee
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign Number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity /Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:

STV 100
December 31, 2014
Ms. Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
SUBJECT: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit #3
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement No. 030018
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek, Anson County, North Carolina
NCDOT TIP: 17BP.10.R.70
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates Project No. 2516325
Dear Ms. Amschler:
On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) — Division 10,
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates (STV /RWA) is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification
Form (See Attachment A) in accordance with General Condition No. 31 and pursuant to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) #3 — Maintenance.
The NCDOT has retained STV /RWA to assist in matters related to wetland permitting services
for this project. Materials supporting our Jurisdictional Determination regarding the approximate
location and extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the approximate 2.02 -acre project
study area (PSA) including a USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR; as of August 1, 2013, the N.C. Division of Water Quality
was combined with the NCDWR) Stream Identification Form, a Wetland Determination Data
Form, an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form, Approximate Waters of the
U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map, and photographs, are found in Attachment B. Accompanying
figures, permit drawings, list of property owners, and an impact summary are included in
Attachment C. A "No Archaeological Survey Required Form" and "Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form" are included as Attachment D.
Based on National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photography for Anson County and
verified by field review, the PSA consists primarily of undeveloped forest, residential property,
disturbed (maintained) right -of -way (R/W), and the improved paved roadway.
Project Description /Purpose and Need
STV /RWA was retained by the NCDOT to provide engineering and environmental services for
the bridge replacement project on SR 1711 (Doc Wyatt Road). The SR 1711 bridge over Branch
of Cedar Creek PSA is located northeast of Wadesboro in the eastern portion of Anson County,
east of NC 109; see Attachment C — Figures 1 and 2.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
The existing bridge consists of a 22' single -span bridge, and the proposed structure is a 30'
cored slab bridge. The existing R/W is 60' wide. The new bridge will essentially be on the same
horizontal alignment as the existing bridge.
This project is part of the NCDOT's Division Managed "Bridge Upgrade and Replacement
Program." This program is intended to replace the State's aging, deficient bridges in an efficient
and cost effective manner. Many of the State's bridges were built in the 1950's and are now
deteriorating faster than funds are available to replace them. It is estimated that for every bridge
replaced, two additional ones become deficient. It is the goal of this program that all bridge
replacements meet state and federal environmental regulations while providing the maximum
benefit to the public.
The existing bridge conditions were most recently evaluated on January 9, 2013 by the NCDOT.
Subsequently, the NCDOT prepared an updated Structural Inventory and Appraisal report for
the SR 1711 Bridge over Branch of Cedar Creek (identified as Bridge No. 030018). This
Structural Inventory and Appraisal report gives the bridge a sufficiency rating of 55.65 out of
100, with a status considered "functionally obsolete." The NCDOT is planning to replace the
existing SR 1711 Bridge No. 030018 over Branch of Cedar Creek, while funding is available,
with an improved modern structure. During construction, the SR 1711 roadway will be closed to
traffic, and traffic will be detoured off -site.
It is anticipated that this Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program project qualifies for a NWP
#3. NWP #3 authorizes the replacement of currently serviceable structures and allows minor
deviations in the structure's configuration due to current construction code or safety standards.
Background and Methodoloav
The scoping meeting for this Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program project, SR 1711 over
Branch of Cedar Creek Bridge Replacement, was held on July 8, 2013 at the NCDOT Division
10 offices in Albemarle, NC. Representatives from the NCDOT, STV /RWA, and NCDWR
attended. Scoping documents prepared by the NCDOT were reviewed and discussed at that
time. A field review followed the scoping meeting and included a site visit to the proposed SR
1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek Bridge Replacement project site on July 8, 2013. An agency
representative from the NCDWR attended the field meeting to review the jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. at that time. It was agreed by the NCDWR that a NWP #3 would be appropriate for this
bridge replacement project.
Field surveys were conducted within the proposed SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek Bridge
Replacement project study area (PSA) by STV /RWA environmental scientists on August 30,
2013. A PSA that was approximately 150 feet wide and 600 feet in length, centered along the
existing bridge, and that extended upstream of SR 1711 for 100 feet and downstream for
approximately 100 feet was field reviewed. Streams and wetlands within the PSA were
assessed and plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), which is administered and enforced in North Carolina
by the USACE, Wilmington District. Potential wetland areas were defined using the USACE
Routine On -Site Determination method as described in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Page 2

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Delineation Manual. "' This technique uses a multi - parameter approach, which requires positive
evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. In addition, the USACE
"Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region ,2 was utilized for further procedural and technical guidance. Potential
jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to the most recent North Carolina
Division of Water Resources3 methodology and USACE guidance. NCDWR Stream
Identification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets are included in
Attachment B. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form and representative
photographs of the jurisdictional features located in the PSA are also included in Attachment B.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangle maps [Wadesboro, NC (1988) and
Ansonville, NC (1986)]
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (Wadesboro
and Ansonville, NC)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soils Series Data Map for Anson County,
NC (2009)
• USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey
The USGS map and Soil Survey each depict a stream within the PSA. The USFWS NWI map
depicts Branch of Cedar Creek as a potential jurisdictional feature within the PSA. Jurisdictional
stream boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by STV /RWA Senior Environmental
Scientist Brandon Phillips, CHMM, with blue and white striped tape at the ordinary high water
mark near the top of the stream bank. The boundaries were surveyed by the NCDOT and
mapped using ArcGIS 10.1 software.
The proposed SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek Bridge Upgrade and Replacement project
is located entirely within the Carolina Slate Belt Province of North Carolina, which is
characterized by trellised drainage patterns. Based on topographic mapping, elevations in the
PSA range from approximately 275 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to 285
feet NGVD (Attachment C - Figure 2). The highest elevation in the PSA is located on SR 1711.
The lowest elevation in the PSA is located within Branch of Cedar Creek where it exits the
northwestern portion of the PSA.
According to the NRCS SCS, the project study area contains two soil types: Chewacla silt loam,
0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded (ChA), and Mayodan fine sandy loam; 2 -8% slopes (MaB); see
1 Environmental Laboratory, 1987, "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, " Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region, version 2.0., ed. J.F. Berkowitz, J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC /EL TR-
12-9. Vicksburg MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
3 North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins. Version 4.11. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
Page 3

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Attachment C — Figure 3. The Chewacla soil series is included on the NRCS List of Hydric Soils
due to inclusions of the Wehadkee, undrained, soil type.
The proposed PSA is located in the Yadkin -Pee Dee drainage basin, Rocky River Watershed
subbasin 03- 04- 01 -05. The major stream in the project vicinity is Branch of Cedar Creek.
Branch of Cedar Creek is a Class C water that generally flows in an northwestern direction to
Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek flows to the Pee Dee River.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
The results of the on -site field review conducted by STV /RWA environmental scientists indicate
that one jurisdictional relatively permanent water (RPW), RPW Stream A (aka, Branch of Cedar
Creek) is located within the PSA. The figure entitled Approximate Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit (Attachment B) depicts the approximate location of this
jurisdictional feature. No potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the PSA.
Representative photographs of the jurisdictional feature that is located within the PSA are
included in Attachment B. The PSA is located in Anson County which is not one of the 25
designated trout counties of NC.
Streams or Relatively Permanent Waters
RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) was concluded to be an RPW with perennial
hydrology. Branch of Cedar Creek, also concluded to be providing important aquatic function,
begins off -site to the southeast and flows northwest across the PSA (Attachment C — Figure 4).
Approximately 249 linear feet (0.06 acre) of Branch of Cedar Creek is located within the PSA.
Branch of Cedar Creek is depicted as a blue line stream on the USGS topographic quadrangle
and is depicted as a stream on the NRCS Soils Series Data Map of Anson County (Attachment
C - Figures 2 and 3, respectively). The Branch of Cedar Creek flows to Cedar Creek. Cedar
Creek flows to the Pee Dee River, a traditional navigable water.
More information on the individual stream characteristics of RPW Stream A can be found on the
NCDWR Stream Identification Form and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
included in Attachment B.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The project involves the replacement of the existing 22' single -span bridge that crosses over
Branch of Cedar Creek on SR 1711 with a 30' cored slab bridge. No permanent impacts to
waters of the U.S. would result from the project. Minor temporary impacts (designated by the
symbol "TS" on Attachment C - Sheets 4 and 4A) may occur to a maximum of 60 linear feet
(approximately 0.02 acre) of RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) due to the demolition of
the existing bridge and the removal of the existing timber bridge abutments and piles that may
potentially cause incidental debris to fall into the channel (See Attachment C — Sheets 4 and
4A). Roadway approach work has been minimized to that which is absolutely necessary within
the scope of replacing the bridge and will result in no additional impacts to waters of the U.S. No
major utility relocations would be required as part of the bridge replacement; no additional
impacts would occur as a result of utility relocations.
Page 4

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Hydraulic calculations have been prepared based on the placement of the new 30' cored slab
bridge. No increase in the upstream flood elevations is anticipated based on these calculations.
Based on the results of the HEC -RAS model for SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek, the
existing bridge can be replaced with a longer bridge without causing a rise to the established
100 -year flood elevations and meets the requirements of Federal Highway Administration,
Federal -Aid Policy Guide, 23 CFR 650A, "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on
Floodplains," and the Memorandum of Agreement between the NCDOT and the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program.
Project activities will be done in compliance with Water Quality Certification No. 3883. All work
in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come
into contact with the disturbed area. A special stilling basin will be used to dewater the stream in
the work area. No untreated runoff shall be discharged into the stream. All necessary measures
shall be taken to prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the
state. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Matting that incorporates
plastic mesh and /or plastic twine shall not be used in the stream or floodplains. No temporary
fills or access roads will be used.
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding the potential temporary impacts to Branch of Cedar
Creek while achieving project goals is not possible. There is not a practicable alternative that
would achieve the project purpose of replacing the bridge and improving the roadway
approaches without causing potential minor debris impacts to Branch of Cedar Creek. Best
management practices (BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be
installed and maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the
stream channel and associated water quality.
Potential temporary impacts to Branch of Cedar Creek are unavoidable due to the requirement
to replace the bridge with a longer single -span bridge, and the removal of the existing bridge
and the existing timber abutments and piles. Efforts to minimize impacts to this stream included:
The crossing of Branch of Cedar Creek will essentially remain in the same location
within the existing SR 1711 R/W in order to reduce the need for additional roadway fill
and to avoid additional impacts to Branch of Cedar Creek.
Fill slopes have been designed to be 2:1 as opposed to the standard 4:1.
The construction of the bridge from either of the stream embankments will eliminate the
need for heavy equipment to enter jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and will allow
demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new bridge with minimal
temporary impacts to the stream channel. The road will be closed during construction
and work will be performed from the existing roadway approaches.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 34;
updated February 21, 2012), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions (March
29, 2012), and applicable NCDWR consistency conditions (March 19, 2012).
Page 5

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Comoensatory Mitiaation
As described above, efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. The replacement of the existing bridge with a longer
single -span bridge may cause potential temporary impacts to 60 linear feet (approximately 0.02
acre) of RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek); see Attachment C — Sheets 4 and 4A. To
compensate for this potential temporary impact, debris and other blockages within the stream in
the immediate project area will be removed. Debris and blockage removal would be
accomplished using equipment operating outside the top of bank. No additional compensatory
mitigation measures are proposed.
Stormwater Management Plan
A bridge replacement project going through the Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program
process is considered to be a `re- development' procedure and redevelopment procedures do
not require a state stormwater permit. Consequently, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
runoff controls will be implemented during construction to reduce the stormwater impacts to the
receiving stream due to erosion and unfiltered runoff. Temporary construction runoff will be
controlled by using silt fence, silt fence wattle breaks, floating turbidity curtain, rock inlet
sediment trap, special stilling basins and temporary matting and grassing.
The proposed roadway will be in normal crown and will drain through grass shoulders and traffic
bearing grated inlets. The grated inlets are located on both sides of the roadway on the
approach of the bridge and are conveyed through a 15" reinforced concrete pipe to a riprap
apron to prevent erosion. Fabric silt fence will be used for small runoff areas where the flow is in
sheet form. Wattle breaks along the proposed silt fence will be used for small concentrated
flows. Floating turbidity curtain will be installed along the stream banks and will be removed as
work progresses. All dewatering activities will be through a permeable fabric bag.
Cultural Resources
In a document dated August 27, 2014, the NCDOT Archaeologist made a determination of "No
Archaeological Survey Required" for the Area of Potential Effects (APE); (Attachment D — No
Archaeological Survey Required Form). In a document dated August 25, 2014, the NCDOT
Architectural Historian made a determination of "No Survey Required" for Historic Architecture
and Landscapes for the APE (Attachment D — Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey
Required Form).The project activities are largely confined to the existing right -of -way. Based on
the previous impacts to the area from the construction of the existing bridge and roadway, it is
unlikely that archaeological or historic resources are present within the APE and /or the
proposed permit area.
Protected Species
STV /RWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the PSA on August
30, 2013. Prior to the field reviews, STV /RWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which provided
existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Anson County. These databases indicate that there are three federal
Page 6

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
and state endangered species that may occur in Anson County. These protected species and
their physical descriptions and habitat requirements are described below.
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) — Federal /State Endangered
The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous fish species which spends most of the year in
brackish or salt water and moves into fresh water only to spawn. The shortnose sturgeon is
dark - colored on its dorsal side and light on the ventral side. This species of sturgeon has a
wide mouth pointed downward beneath a short snout and can grow up to three feet long. The
sides of its body contain five rows of sharp, pointed plates. The shortnose sturgeon inhabits the
lower portions of large rivers and coastal rivers along the Atlantic Coast.
Potential habitat does not exist within this reach of RPW Stream A, aka, Branch of Cedar Creek,
located within the project study area. There are no records of shortnose sturgeon being located
in the Ansonville or Wadesboro, NC USGS quadrangles. Based on the field review, the
available databases, the lack of impact to the bed and bank of the creek, the proposed
construction methods, and the limited area of proposed temporary stream disturbance, it is
determined that this project will have `no effect' on shortnose sturgeon.
Bioloaical Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus sehweinitzii) - Federal/State Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant limited to the Piedmont counties of North
and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous
roots. The sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small
heads. The disc is less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) across and the petals are two to three cm
long. The lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The
typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line rights -of -way
(R/Ws), open areas, and edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically
considered good potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils
associated with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with substantial
rock fragments), those which have a high shrink -swell capacity, and those which vary over the
course of the year from very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from August to the first frost of
the year.
No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the project study area and the
area was reviewed within the flowering season. There are records of Schweinitz's sunflower
being located in the Ansonville and the Wadesboro, NC USGS quadrangles. The NC Natural
Heritage Program ( NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower were present within several miles of the project study area. The project
study area has some of the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, but there are
no known populations within the proximity of the project study area, so it is unlikely that that
Schweinitz's sunflower would be found within the project study area. Based on the field review
during the flowering season, the available databases, and the limited area of proposed roadside
disturbance, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Page 7

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Federal /State Endangered
Adult red - cockaded woodpeckers are approximately 18 to 20 cm long with a wingspan of 35 to
38 cm. Adults have a black cap, throat, and stripe on the side of the neck and white cheeks and
underparts. The back is barred with black and white horizontal stripes. Adult males have a small
red spot on each side of the black cap. The bird is native to southern pine forests and typically
nests within open pine stands with trees 80 years or older. Roosting cavities are excavated
within live pines, which are often infected with a fungus which causes what is known as red -
heart disease. Foraging may occur in pine and /or mixed pine /hardwood stands 30 years or older
with trees 10" or larger in diameter at breast height (dbh).
No individuals of red - cockaded woodpecker were observed within the project study area. A
limited number of suitable foraging trees and no nesting trees are present within the PSA. The
NCNHP website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest populations of red -
cockaded woodpecker. The NCNHP determined that only historical occurrences of red -
cockaded woodpecker were present within Anson County. There are historical records of red -
cockaded woodpecker being located in the Ansonville, NC USGS quadrangle. Based on the
field review, the available databases, the limited amount of mature trees suitable for foraging,
and the limited area of proposed disturbance to forested areas, it is determined that this project
will have 'no effect' on red - cockaded woodpecker.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Closing
Please feel free to contact the undersigned at (704) 372 -1885 should you have any questions or
concerns regarding this PCN pursuant to Nationwide Permit #3.
Sincerely,
SN /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Brandon J. Phillips, CHMM
Environmental Science Senior Manager
Michael A. lagnocco, PWS
Senior Scientist
Attachment A - Pre - Construction Notification Form
Attachment B - Jurisdictional Determination Materials
Attachment C - Figures
Attachment D - No Archaeological Survey Required Form and Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form
cc: Garland Haywood - NCDOT
Larry Thompson - NCDOT
Alan Johnson - NCDWR (pdf copy)
Page 8

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Attachment A
Pre - Construction Notification Form

®F N7 A 7F,y
� r
p •c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: X❑ Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑X Yes ❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek
2b.
County:
Anson
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Wadesboro
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
17BP.10.R.70
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Louis Mitchell, P.E.
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDOT Division 10
4d.
Street address:
716 West Main Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Albemarle, NC 28001
4f.
Telephone no.:
704 983 -4400
4g.
Fax no.:
704 982 -3146
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Brandon Phillips, CHMM
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
5c.
Street address:
900 West Trade Street, Suite 715
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202 -1144
5e.
Telephone no.:
(704) 372 -1885
5f.
Fax no.:
(704) 371 -3393
5g.
Email address:
brandon.phillips @stvinc.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
WBS 17BP.10.R.70
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.999443 Longitude: -80.002394
1c.
Property size:
2.02 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Branch of Cedar Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Existing
conditions include SR 1711 (Doc Wyatt Road) and Bridge No. 030018, undeveloped forest, residential property and disturbed /maintained
right -of -way.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 249
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace Bridge No. 030018 with an improved, modern structure.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge replacement using heavy construction equipment. Refer to Project Description in cover letter for details on the proposed development.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the I ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
Comments:
project including all prior phases)_in the Dast?
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑X Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
Choose one
2c. 2d.
Type of wetland Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
_
-
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Yes /No
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
Yes /No
W5
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (I NT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 T
Demolition
Branch of Cedar Creek
PER
Corps
10
60
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
60
3i. Comments:
Stream Impacts are depicted on Attachment C - Sheet 4.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or type
Temporary T)
01 Choose one Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c. 5d.
5e.
Pond ID number
Proposed use or
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
purpose of pond
(acres)
Flooded
_Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments: No pond or lake construction impacts are proposed.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction_
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require miti ation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2
number— mitigation impact impact
Permanent (P) or required? (square (square
Temporary T feet ) feet
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6 Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts: 0 0
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Best management practices (BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and maintained during construction activities
to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream channel and associated water quality. Potential temporary impacts to Branch of Cedar Creek are
unavoidable due to the requirement to remove the existing bridge and the existing timber abutments. See cover letter for additional details on
avoidance and minimization.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction of the cored slab bridge will take place from roadway approaches which will minimize stream impact.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
j Type: Choose one Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Debris and blockage removal would be accomplished using equipment operating outside the top of bank.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes X❑ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
o
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this pLoject require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program process is considered a 're- development' procedure and does not require a state stormwater permit.
BMP's and runoff controls will be implemented during construction to reduce the stormwater impacts to the receiving stream due to erosion and runoff
Sediment and erosion control will adhere to "Design for Sensitive Watershed" standards.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
El USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
0 Coastal counties
CI HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
❑Yes F-1 No
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑X Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes Q No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
i
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project involves the replacement of an existing structure.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
°
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Anson County is not a listed county with Designated Critical Habitat. Endangered species information was obtained from the NCNHP and USFWS Ipac
website.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ❑X No
i
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA EFH Webpage
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Please see NCDOT'No Survey Required Forms', Attachment D.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Hydraulic calculations have been prepared based on the placement of the cored slab bridge. No increase in the upstream flood elevations is
anticipated based on these calculations. Based on the results of the HEC -RAS model for SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek, the existing bridge can
be replaced without causing a rise to the established 100 -year flood elevations and meets the requirements of Federal Highway Administration,
Federal -Aid Policy Guide, 23 CFR 650A, "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains, and the NCDOT MOA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM maps on -line
Louis Mitchell, PE.
12 -31 -2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided )
Page 10 of 10

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Attachment B
Jurisdictional Determination Materials
-USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
-NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
- Wetland Determination Data Form
- Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
- Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit
- Photographs

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: NCDOT Division 10 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 8/30/13 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: Branch of Cedar Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin - Pee Dee
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 250 acres
8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 ft. 10_ County: Anson
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): from bridge to 100 feet downstream
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 34999443 N - 80.002394 W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): none
14. Recent Weather Conditions: warns, sunny
15. Site conditions at time of visit: warm, sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of t valuation point`? YES 9 If yes, estimate the water surf ea:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? UE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential
70 % Forested
21. Bankfull Width: 10 ft
% Commercial �% Industrial —% Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3 ft
23. Channel slope down center of stream: :Flat (0 to 2 %) X Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: - Straight X Occasional Bends i-Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Comments: Perennial RPW
RPW Stream A, aka, Branch of Cedar Creek, was determined to have perennial flow within project limits.
­�7-
Evaluator's Signature r Date (1 . 3c)- r .,
This channel evaluation form is inters d to be used Aly as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO NT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
i Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 5
2
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
—
—
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max po ints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
no dischar ge = 0, springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
P64
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max po ints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; lag e, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
d
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
F
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
3
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-
_
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 5
0-6
3
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
-
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
4
F.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0
0 -5
0 -5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(dee ly embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max oints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max p oints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
59
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek)
NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 8/30/2013
Project/SiteBURP R -70 SR 1711
Br. Cedar Creek
Latitude: 34.999443
Moderate
Strong
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips
County: Anson County
Longitude: - 80.002394
Total Points:
S tream Determination (circle one
Wadesboro, NC Quad
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 39.25
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
C 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
_ 2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 1.5
was = 3
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.0_ ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
C:�
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
C 0.5D
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1D.75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
<a
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
13L = 1.5 Other = 0
'perenni _-! ctroame may alcn be iri- tiff -i -i- nthc - thnrle CZ.. n 'iS of manna)
Notes: Stream A Branch of Cedar Creek was determined to be perennial
within proiect limits.
EPT taxa frogs. and
Gambusia s . observed.
Sketch.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project /Site: BURP SR 17l I over Br. of Cedar Creek City /County: Wades boro /Ansoil Sampling Date: 08 -30 -13
Applicant /Owner NCDOT Division 10 State NC Sampling Point DP #1
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips, CHMM Section, Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope ( %): —2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR -P Lat: 34.999432 N Long: -80.002434W Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
DP #1 is representative of an upland area (See Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit for location of DP# 1).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary, Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (13'10)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes caullary fringe)
arks:
gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Wetland Hydrology indicators are not present,
No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP#1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
TreeStratl_IITI (Plot size: 30'radius
NU_nrlber of Dominant Species
%Cover
Species?
Star Lls
Liriodendron tulipifera
(A)
60
Yes
FACU
2_ Fraxinus penwylvanica
8
40
Yes
FACW
a-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
62.5
(AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
4
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bV:
r
x 1 =
FAO/'J species
x 2 =
7
FAC. species
100
= Total Cover
FACU species
50% of total cover
50
20 to of
total cover:
20
Sapling /Shrub Straturn (Plot size: 10'radius
1
(B)
1 _ Ligustrum sinense
60
Yes
FACU
4_
5.
7.
60
= Total Cover
50 of total cover.
30
0btu of
total cover.
12
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter )
1 _ Microstegium vimineum
30
Yes
FAC
Commelina communis
20
Yes
FAC
3 Lonicera japonica
20
Yes
FAC
4 Ambrosia artemisi(olia
20
Yes
FACU
5 Toxicodendron radicans
10
No
FAC
3
9
In
11
100
= Total Cover
50°I of total cover:
50
20% of total coder:
20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30'radius }
1 Smilax rotundifolia
10
Yes
FAC
3.
4
5
10
= Total Cover
50% of total cover
5
?0% of total cover:
2
Rerrarks, (Includo photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Hydrophytic vegetation is present.
Sampling Point: DP#1
Dominance Test worksheet:
NU_nrlber of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
5
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All errata:
8
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
62.5
(AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bV:
OBL species
x 1 =
FAO/'J species
x 2 =
FAC. species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is =50%
3- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
4 - Morphological .Adaptations' (Provide sl_IIDporting
data in Rernarks or on a separate sheet)
Problelrlatl!: Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — 'dlioocly plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 crn) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or e_Iual to 3 23 ft (1
m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and'dvoody plants less than 3.2e, ft tall
Woody vine — All livoody vines greater than :3 28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedn - font — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:DP#1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Ivl.atrix Redox Features
C01or(WojSj) U/� olor;h-n0isst) _ % Type' Co c—' Text -ire Remarks
0.4 10 YR 4/4 100 Sandy
4 -20 10 YR 416 100
etion. RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 crn Muck (A'10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Sandy play
'Location PL=Pore Lining, M- Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A'l0) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— 'very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F3)
_ Iron- k'lranganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric. Surface (F'l3) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent (Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Indicators were not present.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

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: NCDOT Div 10 BURP - SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek
State:NC County/parish/borough: Anson City: Wadesboro
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.999443° 11, Long. -80.002394'U,.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3873436.0 E 591035.25
Name of nearest waterbody: Branch of Cedar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Pee Dee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
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: 08/29/13.
Field Determination. Date(s): 08/30/13
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There M ,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:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There in "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): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
�j 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
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: RPW Stream A = 249 linear feet: 10 width (ft) and/or 0.06 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Est tllsbvl by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non- regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z 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).
3 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.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.L; otherwise, see Section HIM below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
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,
slip 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.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 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.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
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: Pick List.
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:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ 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
❑
the presence of litter and debris
changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
® High Tide Line indicated by: E Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(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 sever jurisdiction (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 -TNW:
Flow is: . Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: . Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: non jurisdictional stormwater conveyance.
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Rclationship)« TNW
Project wetlands are Pick Ust river miles from TNW.
Project waters are List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 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 any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
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:
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 III.D:
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:
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):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
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: RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) has an OHWM, well - defined bed and banks, fish and some
sediment deposition. RPW Stream A is depicted as a blue line on the USGS topographic quadrangle and as a stream on the
NRCS Soil Series Map. RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) flows to Cedar Creek (RPW) which flows to the Pee Dee
River (TNW).
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):
Tributary waters: RPW Stream A is 249 linear feet 10 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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):
®Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 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.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
[] Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
BSee Footnote # 3.
9 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.

0 Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply);
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
® Wetlands: acres.
NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non- wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
IN Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Attachment B -Approximate Waters of the U.S.
and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000, Wadesboro, NC (1988).
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Soil Series Data for Anson County (2009).
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Wadesboro, NC.
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑' FEMA/FIRM maps:
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NAIP, Anson County 2010.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photos (08/30/13).
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):

B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek),
were delineated by STV /RWA and surveyed by the NCDOT (Attachment B - Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map
Exhibit). Stream A was determined to be a relatively permanent water (RPW) with perennial flow based on an OHWM, well - defined bed
and banks, fish and some sediment deposition and is also depicted on the USGS and Soils Survey as a stream (blue line) feature. RPW
Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) flows to Cedar Creek (RPW) which flows to the Pee Dee River (TNW).

Fz a0D �j U q a eel�� 9
ao i d Z�z F W Z E'sr Lv •-�wm 3�v 3 u N
en
W Ca da °e .P�o�D�$�°.
az a Cr rr o G� Z '¢e goy N
14 u F e y Uj u e ., o a W A _?
•}^�_� 6g9!r... •� z O .y CC i � Q a d Z Ca z w ¢ a � °_ � � � ,°a �` .n � �, o � S S. 'Y' v Q d W
Z Q y Cc6 �• ym.v�•5 z �S TCO za R a >
__ �• O LL
4..r •O� N
U
oQIV
L
U c)
� C
f6 O
co
E N
cu
N
op
i
t
i
V •
J ♦'
u� M
N
A.
r
U Q
CU CU
^0 0 N N
0- N L L
� h T
� •� � C
X O C
O U U 0 ,
Q d) a cu
INV

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Photograph 1 — A view of the SR 1711 bridge over Branch of Cedar Creek, looking to the
southwest.
Photograph 2 — A view of RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) at the SR 1711 bridge,
looking upstream to the southeast.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement Program December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Photograph 3 — A view of RPW Stream A (Branch of Cedar Creek) at the SR 1711 bridge,
looking downstream to the northwest.
f
Photograph 4 — A view of RPW Stream .
k (Branch of Cedar Creek) flowing under the SR 1711
bridge.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Attachment C
Figures

d �
°oZ aced Z c rl
If
z b
°mom o ° a� a U c E" U ; t
lb <F R CCa i� o O ^ j: °o \' N 0.
`
u •� O �". m a F
a.
4a
�a
r�
O
[' d yJc
9"f,�S
�Vo
P�
`1-
Gt ee
aa�
Ge
77
JO
�J
m
m
u
U /prUr�W 4ip�$ �l o
N
0
0
Asy �r „a
i VOL,4UC,s `
s�
S�
Clio. r
A�
Jp
L
Q
VJ
U
N
w`p1reC�y�1 = �
J
a+

F ew
CD
CD LL
d = c = a a
y
- / ` •'� d . {AYE �. ti F o
r
sy ^"
��* — Ir
4-il
-,
G1 `
' 6
^R
+ k)
I l r
it
` o' ,
,4 4H••r
Cf
N
^
r .
f
`/
0

o A a r.
a
M 6
Zm.
Ys '9 � >
v
�� 3� `�
:'.oS� 3-g�
• of 9 0 09 y� O _ F „dj i' �LZ 33 x�o Sa
'P�
o a o f O a Oa o V]
,kk 4 u� O p, a/]a R� 0 6. W A a eZ.� �`o.�
cyt�?.s
z A y
I:1 � F- z _�iu�.sr�' -s� Ns�� _ c •e l:,
o
CN
A
d Y
o
1 QU LO
L
14 C O
1, w M O
! " 1. o
Q �
J
- VJ
r _
l
r -
r� -Y
Ir
M
Y
A
FM
cu
L
t; r
IL
ti Tw N
N
Q V U d
..r , U Q N U) N
1,6 CL
n
"

o_
i
N
0
c
ANN
ooN
Nto
T>
Nsn
,o 0
NEE
STATE L NORTH JY 1L 1l JY VJ JY 1Ld 1L A
8[A18
Biw18 PROI6CT BBP®IBNCB NQ NO.
�
17BP.10.R.70 �
DIVISION OIL HIGHWAYS
srwn
asa.no. n.w.esw.xao. wecsormrr
•
109
17BP.10.R.70 P.E.
,nP°
OR
17BP.10.R.70
R/W /UTILITIES
•
JcP � + Mir
ANSON COUNTY
,n,P ski R
v o � afi�a
o
-, SdaGS�
LOCATION: BRIDGE #018 OVER BRANCH CEDAR CREEK
END PROJECT LLo
ON SR 1711 (DOC WYATT RD.)
NORTH CAROLINA
sCO* Rd
R (411
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
109 oa
°°
BEGIN PROJECT
STREAM IMPACTS
VICINITY MAP
•--�• DETOUR N.T.S.
V
�
a
O
SEE \ SITE 1
FIGURE
SITE 1
BEGIN PROJECT WBS 17BP.IO.R.70 END
PROJECT WBS
17BP.10.R.70
-L- STA. 11 +00.00
��\ END BRIDGE -L- STA. 14 +10.00
`P \
n -L- STA. 12 +66.63
m
- -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - L — - - - --
TO SR 1728 SR 1711 (DOC WYATf ROAD) TO SR 1703
BEGIN BRIDGE`
-L- STA. 12 +34.37
R\
Permit Drawing
Sheet of
•
r •
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
_
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
VPLANS
20
GRAPHIC SCALES
l0 0 20 40
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2011 = 180
PROJECT LENGTH
PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
900 West Trade St., Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC License Number F -0991
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
Mohr N
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.70 = 0.053 MILES
`of
2012 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
ADT 2025 = 420
PLANS
DHV = N/A
—
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.70 0.006 MILES
P.E.m
M�
20
10 0 20 40
D = N/A
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.70 = 0.059 MILES
J
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
s s
sICNATURE:
ROADWAY
T = 6%
NOVEMBER 6, 2014
DESIGN
�°'9P a• °'
rnolECT ENGINEER
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
O
V = 55 MPH
ENGINEER
of rn�cee
V
4
2 0 4 8
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
LETTING DATE:
MAAMOON K. ABDELAZIZ
PROJECT DESIGNER
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
Division Bridge Manager
APRIL 15, 2015
LOCAL
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SIGNATURE:
PE

SEE
FIGURE
QQQQ SITE 1
\ O
\ I I CHARLES L. MARTIN
\ \ I I DB 734 PG 194
\\ /
� I EXISTING R/W
�- o
0
- - --� C
SR %7//
N 62' 41' 325' E ~ DOC WYATT ROAD
-- - - - - - - - - -`r - T - - - - -- - - = -L - -- - - - - - -- -
� � F
\ I
I
IEXIS G R/W
I I
I I
I I
I I
I O
ALLEN W. GATHINGS I WILLIAM C. MAULDIN
FRANCES P. GATHINGS I ' DB 969 PG 017
DB 169 PG 243 I I
I I
a
0
g
300
QQ� -
�7
295
g
290
`c
w 285
Lu
U
280
v
N
N
N
-L- STA 11+010A0
- =288 'IF j4l
IN
ON
• I I I
10+00 00
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIII10-_
Al
m�
�nZ
SITE 1
i_
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LEGEND I78PJ0R7O 4
RW SHEET NO.
DENOTES TEMPORARY
®
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
900 West Trade St., St, 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC L—, Number F -0991
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
/Q7
TEMPORARY
0.02
60
SW IMPACTS
BASE DISCHARGE = 528
CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100
g
BASE HW ELEVATION = 27884
FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = )800
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LEGEND I78PJ0R7O 4
RW SHEET NO.
DENOTES TEMPORARY
®
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
900 West Trade St., St, 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC L—, Number F -0991
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.02
60
SW IMPACTS
BASE DISCHARGE = 528
CFS
LARRY C. STARLING
MIRIAM F. STARLING
DB 590 PG 008
TING R/W _
°o
— _ F o
- -- -- _- — T - - - - -- .- - - — L -T- -- - T -- ----- - - - - --
- — F
i EXISTING R/W
JORDAN TTWO, LLC
DB 990 PG 227
LO
h
6 --
ti
ORANCH CEDAR CREEK 40, 01 40,
Permit Drawing
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Sheet GRAPHIC
:■■■0111 ■ :■:M111■::::■ ■■:■::■■:■■:::■■■:■■::■■::■■:: :::::::: ■ ■: ■ ■ ::::::::::::::::Mi
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■o■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■
:°:■■:■:■:■::iniii::::::: : :: : :: : : ::::n ::::: : : :::■■: :: ::
.....
...... ....■■■■. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
: C:::: ��: 1� : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::G:�
MEMO ■� 0 :• C: :NONE ■ ■: :::::: ::::::::::: : ::::::::::: W
: EMO :::::®
■ ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■
MENEM MEN
to
■ ■■■■■■■■n■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■
.... . .......
■W ■WWn ■W n ■ ■WW ■ ■W -
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
BRIDGE HYDRAUUC DATA
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 390
CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25
YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 2779
FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 528
CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100
YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 27884
FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = )800
CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= )500
YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 2872
FT
MENNEN
■ ..............................
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■N■■
ON
III ::
■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■u■■■■■■■�
::q
: : :
: :
: : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::
-,1I\
■■■ ■m ■■
/ ••
ME
C■■n■■■■u■■■unnnNo
ENNOMM:::::::::CENIN
No
:::
:.::�::::::::■::::
::: ::: ■IN
■■
IN
■■■■■■■■■
ONE
■No®
® 00 00
BRIDGE HYDRAUUC DATA
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 390
CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25
YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 2779
FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 528
CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100
YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 27884
FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = )800
CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= )500
YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 2872
FT
15 +00
280
275 1
270
15 +50

o,
0
0
N
N
N
EE
IGURE
ITE 1
RTI
PG 194�, am
\ V I
o mN \ ' - -.J 1
90 EXISTING R/W - ..
\ o _
F
N 62' 4/' 325' E ~ WC WYATT ROAD
8 F
b�bZ
mb2 IEXI
I I
sbz I e6
ALL W. GAT INGS I I 6� ILLIA 14A IN
FRANC P. GAT GS
DB 169 243 I I D 9 h
N�
9\
m�
Yp
G�
qF-
/40
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
u■■■
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.02
60
SW IMPACTS
.
f`—��?STARtIN
A F. STARLIS
590 PG 008
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
I7BPJOR70 4A
RW SHEET NO.
K
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates. Inc.
900 West Trade St., Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC Ll..... Number 1-0991
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
:
■■■■■■
11 ggEEEEEEEEggg�ggggggEEEEE°
u■■■
...
...
.
.n.:..
.
MEN
,'
�
.
■■
n:.
n■■
n■■
n■■
n■■■■■■■■■■
q■■■■■■■■■■
n::GG
�I:
■■
■..:.
:GGGGGU
■.:.
:GU:Gi
:GruGGGGGG■i�
qmo
Wmn
nmmmoomW
oWO
Wmngmnoom
:::::::.
.::
■ ■■■n■■q■■u■n■
G.n..■.■.■.■
G.■.■
G.■
G.■.
■ GG.■
:...
.:
.G.G.G.G.......:
.:
:: :
::::::::::
......
nmmmoomgoomgoqomnqmqommo
::::..
G.■.■
:..:......:...
. ::....:..:.
■■oom■sn■n
. :.■
:....:..:.q.:...q...
■mmm
■■■■■E■mnoommgsmo
C
u■■■■■■■■■
-
u■■■
n■
n■■■
u■■■■■■
gqm.n.
g..m.m:
n■
u■■■n■■n■■■■■n■■W■■■■n■■■■■■Mvl
gG
m:mg.q
mom■■■■
m.m.■ o:
■■W
m
■■■■■
riG:
u■■■■■■
n■■
q■■■■
■■u■■n■■■■■■u■■■■■■n■■q■■n■■q■�
lim
:m:Gm
M ::
:
: :
I
�EEEE®
111 �
GGG
:,E:::::G:GG:::nG:■En::::G.
°.:
EGG:
Gm:o:
Gm' .oGs:
GGG
:: ::Gn:
■:
:
g
I
■
....._
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE�EEEEEEEEEEEE�EEEEEEEEEE
.■'
:
:
.
.■ :m.
:
=ME
.m:ori.o.■
: .m:.g::oG
.s:m: .m:.gn
..o:
.m: .m:o
:.■G .:o.
:m:mg.g9mg
.m:o:og
.
EG.
EEEE??
.o: .oGm::
EE®
EEEEEE®
:
EEEEEEEEEE
■■■■■■
®EG.EEEE??EE�EE
n■■■■■■■■■
W■■■■■■■■■■
®gg�gC
u■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■W■■■■n■■■
,/
/ �g
■■
n■■■■■■
q■■■■■■
n■■
n■■
u■■
n■■■■■■■■■■
q■■■■
n■■■■
■■■■■■n■■■■■■n■■n■■■■■■q■■■■■■n
;1
:GG::G:GGg
■':g:�
•
:m::mGG■::::E
'::�
°:
GGG■:■
•
• Gq■
•••
•
G■::E■:
••
•
■G■■G■.GG■GG■GGGGGGG■NEW
••
••
'g
•
�
= -
'
GGG:
GGG'
':EEEEEEEEECEEEEEEE�EEEEEE'e�
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG
:G::gGGGgGGGGGG:GGGGG
::GGGGGg
EB
CEEB:
SEEEEEEEEEeEEEEEE:
;1
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■
EEE�EC:
W■■■■■■
EEEe:
EC:
EEEEEEEEEEEEE9EEE�.
■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■ ■■
■
EEEEEE�
■u
■q
■ ■
■q
■W
mm:G:::E
■ ■ ■q
■
■ ■■
/
I �: /
■■■■■
■q
g:.
■ ■G
■EGG■
■ ■ ■
■ ■CC■
■ ■q
■EGG:
■ :.
■ ■■
■■■
■ ■q■
■ ■
MENEM
■ ■
■q
■ ■.q
■. ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■n
■
■■
■■■■■■■
q■■■
........
q■
°
q■■■
°
•
q■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
°'
■
■ ■ ■
■q
■ ■
■ ■ ■.
■ ■
■..
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■
.
- -� - -
■
...
MIKE
■ ■q
■
■ ■u
W
■ ■
■q
■n■■■n■■u■■■■■q■■W■■■
moili
/
::G:::::G:0:ME
■ ■ ■
'G
■ ■
■n
■ ■
"
■ ■ ■
■■
IN
■■■■■■■■■
g�::gg::�
■q
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■
■ ■qm■■
■■■■■n■■■■■■n■■■■■■■n■
■mm
■mm
■mm
■m■
::GGGGGGEGG::GGG
........................................................
■9iG:G..G..:.Gn.G'■
::::::
, . , r
GGG
CG G
GG■G
:GGG.GG.GG:G..G.:P■G:.
...............................
-
milillailmilmillioll
GG
■■
Pus■
■■
G' G'
■
■ GEG'
�GG�
::�:gG:G:GEGG°GGGG�GG
.
m■mm■mmm■■mmm■■.■■■■■.■■■
- - -
- I
:GGGG■.G
BRIDGE HY. - . DATA
......
IN
ME mom moon
MEMO MEMO
n■■■■■■■■■■■
mmmmmmm=mm=mm
n■■■■■■
q■■■■■■■■■■■■■
IN
I
n
EL = 288.77'
::
,.�,
�
..
u■■
----
q■■■
--
G■■
n■:
q ■
■W
■qG
■
■ ■ ■
■G ■
No
IN
■q
■ ■
■G ■
■ ■ ■■
DESIGN , •.
CFS
G
.:::::::::::O::!!
EMISSION=
: G■ G■
G■ G■■
:n
:■ :■
:■ :■ :■■
:n :■
:■ :■ :■
:■■ :.n
:■ :■■
:.■ G.
:■ :■ :■
:■ :■ g■
g■®
GG.GG.:G.GG
IN
!1
GGG:.GG.GG.G:EI
FREQUENCY
..G..G..:
l=Emm=Emmmmmiii�
..G..G...G.G..G..G..G..G..:
..G..G..G.
eiEE:
..G■.G■.G..G■.:■.:■.:■.:
■.G. .:n.:.:■
.Gn.:
G:GGGGG:GG.
- 000
GGGGGGGGGGGGG:
.:■
.:■ .:■
.:■ .:■ .
■ n
■
■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■q
■
■ ■■
■
■
■E
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■n
■ ■ ■■
\
q■■■■■■
. .
■ ■
■q
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■
- -' -' - .
■
� ' -'
q ■
■'EEEE�E
■ ■ ■
■ ■q■
....:.:..
0
■ ■
'��'�
■ ■q
■
■q
■ ■
■■
'EEE�EE�'
E�E�
1 .■■■■mn■
�E■■■■u■
.see
■.gEEEEEEE�GEG�Eae
■.E�E�E
■.EEE
■■u■■
'
� : : - •
E
.
.
.
q ■q■
, •
. '. MPH
■.�E'
■ ■q■
1MO
BASE FREQUENCY = 100
mm
■■■■■■EE■■E■E■■■E■■
■ ■
■ ■ ■W
■ ■q
■q
■
■ ■n
■n■
■ ■
■q■
■q■■■■
m
0 0, 40
ermit Drawing I E E E E E E E E E E
Sheet — of
■■■■s■■■■■■■■..�n■■■■■■■■■■ _ ■WWn.W n ■■W■W.W ni
■■■■■q■■■■■■■r- ■�ym�■■■■■■■■■■ qi
go I ii
u■■■
...
...
.
n
.
,'
�
.
■■
n:.
n■■
n■■
n■■
n■■■■■■■■■■
q■■■■■■■■■■
n::GG
�:::::
:u
:GU
:GGGGGU
:GU:Gi
:GruGGGGGG■i�
qmo
Wmn
nmmmoomW
oWO
Wmngmnoom
■
■ ■■■n■■q■■u■n■
n■■■■
a■■■
■■■q■■n■■■■■■q■■q■■■■■■a■■■■■■q
gmosgmn
nmmmoomgoomgoqomnqmqommo
■■oom■sn■n
■mmm
■■■■■E■mnoommgsmo
-
■: ■■
q■
qGG0 o.
gqm.n.
g..m.m:
oGo:m:
gG
m:mg.q
m.:o.lgn
m.m.■ o:
o.■ m: m.pq
riG:
lim
:m:Gm
M ::
:
: :
I
■■
111 �
GGG
:,E:::::G:GG:::nG:■En::::G.
°.:
EGG:
Gm:o:
Gm' .oGs:
GGG
:: ::Gn:
■:
:
g
I
■
....._
.■'
:
:
.
.■ :m.
:
=ME
.m:ori.o.■
: .m:.g::oG
.s:m: .m:.gn
..o:
.m: .m:o
:.■G .:o.
:m:mg.g9mg
.m:o:og
.
G:■g .m:gRo:
.o: .oGm::
:
■■■■■■
n■■■■■■■■■
W■■■■■■■■■■
u■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■W■■■■n■■■
,/
/ �g
■■
n■■■■■■
q■■■■■■
n■■
n■■
u■■
n■■■■■■■■■■
q■■■■
n■■■■
■■■■■■n■■■■■■n■■n■■■■■■q■■■■■■n
;1
:GG::G:GGg
MEMEMEME
•
:m::mGG■::::E
GGG■:■
•
• Gq■
•••
•
G■::E■:
••
•
■G■■G■.GG■GG■GGGGGGG■NEW
••
••
'g
•
�
= -
'
GGG:
GGG'
GGG:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG
:G::gGGGgGGGGGG:GGGGG
::GGGGGg
;1
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■
W■■■■■■
u
■ ■n
■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■ ■■
■
■ ■ ■
■u
■q
■ ■
■q
■W
mm:G:::E
■ ■ ■q
■
■ ■■
/
I �: /
■■■■■
■q
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■q
■ ■q
■sq
■ ■n
■ ■■
■■■
■ ■q■
■ ■
■q
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■q■
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■
q■■■
q■
°
q■■■
°
•
q■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
°'
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■q
■
°
■ ■q
•
■
■ ■ ■
'GGGG:GGGG°GGEGGGGGGg�
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■q
■■
■■■■■■■
/
-
■ ■ ■
'G
■ ■
■n
■ ■
"
■ ■ ■
■■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■q
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■■
■ ■qm■■
■mm
■mm
■mm
■m■
::GGGGGGEGG::GGG
........................................................
■9iG:G..G..:.Gn.G'■
GGG
CG G
GG■G
:GGG.GG.GG:G..G.:P■G:.
...............................
G:.
■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■n■.
GG
■■
Pus■
■■
G' G'
■
■ GEG'
�GG�
::�:gG:G:GEGG°GGGG�GG
.
m■mm■mmm■■mmm■■.■■■■■.■■■
:GGGG■.G
BRIDGE HY. - . DATA
......
q■■■■■■■■■
n■■■■■■■■■■■
n■■■■■■
q■■■■■■■■■■■■■
n
.......q....q......q..........q
�
..
u■■
G■■■
q■■■
G■■
n■:
q ■
■W
■qG
■
■ ■ ■
■G ■
■ ■qG
■ ■
■q
■ ■
■G ■
■ ■ ■■
DESIGN , •.
CFS
G
: G■ G■
G■ G■■
:n
:■ :■
:■ :■ :■■
:n :■
:■ :■ :■
:■■ :.n
:■ :■■
:.■ G.
:■ :■ :■
:■ :■ g■
g■®
FREQUENCY
..G..G..:
l=Emm=Emmmmmiii�
..G..G...G.G..G..G..G..G..:
..G..G..G.
.Gn.G.G■.:
..G■.G■.G..G■.:■.:■.:■.:
■.G. .:n.:.:■
.Gn.:
.G■.:■.:■.:■.■:.:■.:■.:■.:■.:■..:.:■.:■.:■.:..■:.:■
.:■
.:■ .:■
.:■ .:■ .
■ n
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■: .
■
■ ■ ■
■
■
■
■E
■
\
q■■■■■■
. .
■■■■■■■■■■n■■.........n■....■■
n■■
n...
n..n.nn.....
MEN
=NONE
....:.:..
0
;
1MO
BASE FREQUENCY = 100
YRS
■.n
■n
■ ■n■
■W
■■ ■n■
■n
■ ■n
■.
..
..
• : •
■■
■ ■ ■n
■
■n
■ ■
■ ■ ■.
.....
■ ■n
■ ■ ■
■n
■ ■n
E,
ONE
■
■n■
BASE HW ELEVATION - 27&84
",
Fr
GGGGGGGGGGGG:T.EG
::GG
:GGG:GGGG:E:G:EEG:i
:
:E:G:GG::G:::G::G
NO
MEE::GG::G:G
Eli.:GGG
:
CFS
. . . .-
■q
■ ■
■q
■W
■
■ ■ ■q
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■q
■■■■■
■
■ ■■■
■
q■■■■■■
q■■
n
■ ■q
■
■q
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■q
■ ■ ■
■q
■ ■
■ ■ ■
■q■
. - . - - - ,
-
- -
-
'EEEE
"'
, 7
• -
1 -
EE3E
E
e'E:EEE�EEE.'EEEEE':,�
.G■g■..EG
..
..
11
imuEEmmEEEEE■:G�EE�EEEEyEEEEEE
,
qom
■mgmmmmnGmomsmommomommoME
q
■■r■mmoosgmmgmmoomm
mq
■sgmmgmmoommoEEm000smmo
Emmons
10+00 10+50 11
1 11 1
11 1 11
1 11
1

LEGEND
®DENOTES TEMPORARY \
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.02
60
SW IMPACTS
F
0
YP
cm
0
CHARLES L. MARTIN
DB 734 PG 194
W TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
r
2�
Q
2
F � �
F
Permit Drawing
Sheet of
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
WILLIAM CO. MAULDIN
DB 969 PG 017
SITE I
20' 0' 20'
GRAPHIC SCALE
F/
-
T \
m
z
� Oz
= JO DAN TWO, LLC
M
B 990 PG 227
0
m
m
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 17BP.10.R.70
BRIDGE #018 OVER
BRANCH CEDAR CREEK
ON SR 1711
(DOC WYATT ROAD)
SHEET 1 OF 1 12/24/2014
SR 1711
M' - --
�",NO
: ,1
F � �
F
Permit Drawing
Sheet of
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
WILLIAM CO. MAULDIN
DB 969 PG 017
SITE I
20' 0' 20'
GRAPHIC SCALE
F/
-
T \
m
z
� Oz
= JO DAN TWO, LLC
M
B 990 PG 227
0
m
m
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 17BP.10.R.70
BRIDGE #018 OVER
BRANCH CEDAR CREEK
ON SR 1711
(DOC WYATT ROAD)
SHEET 1 OF 1 12/24/2014

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
1 CHARLES L. MARTIN
ADDRESS
1549 DOC WYATT ROAD
WADESBORO, NC 28170
2 JORDAN TWO, LLC DOC WYATT ROAD
WADESBORO, NC 28170
WILLIAM C. MAULDIN 1584 DOC WYATT ROAD
WADESBORO, NC 28170
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 17BP.10.R.70
BRIDGE #018 OVER
BRANCH CEDAR CREEK
ON SR 1711
(DOC WYATT ROAD)
SHEET 1 OF 1 12/24/2014

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From /To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
-L- 12 +34 to 12 +66
30' Cared Slab
0.02
60
TOTALS:
0.02
60

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Upgrade and Replacement December 31, 2014
SR 1711 over Branch of Cedar Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Attachment D
No Archaeological Survey Required Form and Historic Architecture
and Landscapes No Survey Required Form

rrvIva rrucKlax jvu..
14 -08 -0016
d� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM bye
°Gt° z This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not t
o�p s ' p valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the n
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group._Q
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
WBS No.
F.A. No:
Str #030018
17BP.10.R.70
Federal Permit Required?
County: Anson
Document: MCS
Funding: ® State
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP3
❑ Federal
Project Description: This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 18, which carries SRI 711 (Doctor Wyatt
Road) over a branch of Cedar Creek in Anson County, North Carolina. According to the environmental
input request, the undertaking involves the in place replacement of the structure along the existing
alignment, thereby minimizing potential surface and subsurface disturbances at this location. An off -site
detour route is anticipated. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) is centered upon Bridge 18
and measures 600ft in length (300ftfrom each bridge endpoint) and 100ft in width (50ft from each side of
the SRI 711 center - line).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The project area is located in the central portion of Anson County, a few miles northeast of Wadesboro and west
of Blewett Falls Lake (fig. 1). A branch of Cedar Creek flows northeast to southwest through the project APE. This
section of Anson County is characterized by a hilly and rolling Piedmont topography with elevations ranging
between 280ft AMSL and 350ft AMSL. For the most part, the APE is underlain by frequently flooded and somewhat
poorly drained soil types (fig. 2), and further distinguished by moderately eroded, disturbed land surfaces nearest
the western and eastern project boundaries (figs. 4 & 5).
First, permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input required
by state and federal laws. Next, construction design and other data was examined (when applicable) to define the
character and extent of potential impacts to the ground surfaces embracing the Bridge No. 18 project locale. Once
an APE was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA). No
previously documented archaeological sites are located within or directly adjacent to the project corridor. One
culturally obscure prehistoric isolated find, consisting of one rhyolite flake from a surface context, is situated about
a mile east of the APE (fig. 1). Shovel testing of the vicinity returned no additional artifacts and the site was
determined not eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing (Millis 2003). Clearly, this information
suggests a prehistoric occupation /visitation /utilization of the general vicinity.
Historic structure locations often harbor archaeological deposits and features related to the former occupation of
a property. An inspection of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated
(LD), Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing the NCSHPO website evidenced an
absence of these historic resources within the immediate project area (fig. 3). In addition, historic maps of Anson
County were appraised to further identify former structure locations, land use patterns, or other confirmation of
historic occupation in the project vicinity. Archaeological /historical reference materials were inspected as well. In
general, the cultural background review established that no NRHP listed properties, previously recorded
archaeological sites, or cemeteries are located within the APE or directly proximal. Based on cultural- historical
factors, the APE is considered to have a low potential for the documentation of archaeological resources.
"No ARCHAEOLOCYSURVEY REQUIRED " fmm fir Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Progrannnatic Agreement.
1 of 5

rruiece irucningivu..
Further, topographic, geologic, and NRCS soil survey maps (ChA) were referenced to evaluate pedeological,
geomorphological, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that may have resulted in
past occupation at this location. Aerial and on- ground photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and the Google
Street View map application (when amenable) were also examined /utilized For additional assessment of
disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites (figs. 4 -6).
Environmental and disturbance factors do not suggest an elevated archaeological site potential for the APE.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
No documented cultural resources are contained within the current APE limits for the Bridge No. 18 replacement
in Anson County, North Carolina. The project constitutes a state - funded effort. With the acquisition of a United
States Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide permit #3, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will
apply. Engineering design plans illustrate the bridge to be replaced along the existing alignment with traffic
detoured along another route during construction activities. This should minimize potential surface and subsurface
impacts to areas directly adjacent to the existing right -of -way.
Predicated on soil & topographic data and aerial & ground imagery, mildly sloping and wet ground surfaces
dominate the APE. Minor potential for artifact recovery exists in the vicinity surrounding the APE, though the level,
well- drained hill summits to the east and west of the APE appear decidedly disturbed from contemporary impacts.
Significant, intact archaeological deposits or features are very unlikely to be affected by the construction effort. No
further archaeological consultation is advocated. A finding of "no survey required" is deemed appropriate.
Millis, H, D. Ruggiero, & P. Webb
2003 Archaeological survey and testing for the Sandhills Pipeline project, Iredell, Caborrus, Mecklenburg,
Stanly, Union, Anson, and Richmond counties, North Carolina. Project No. 28622 TRC Garrow
Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (ER -00 -8639) on file, Office of State Archaeology.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey info ® Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
D ARCIfAEOOGOGY SURVEY RE, E I -D
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "foiin far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Progr"ouuuntic Agreeaent.
2 of

h 6A
- r
Project No:
WBS No.:
Fed. Aid No:
Federal
Project Tucking No. (Internal Use)
114-08-00101
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRI ±;D FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
1713P.10.R.70
N/A
F� Yes I I No
Proiect Description: Replace Bridge No.
Cedar Creek.
County: Anson
Document PCE
Tye
Funding: M State ❑ Federal
Permit NWP 3
Ty_pe(# _
18 on SR 1711 (Doctor Wyatt Rd) over Branch of
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Descri vtion of review activities results and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on August 25, 2014. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is 300' from each end of the bridge and 75' from the
centerline each way. The structures within the vicinity of the bridge are all mobile homes, circa 1970.
None are National Register eligible. In addition, Bridge No. 18 is not eligible for National Register listing
based on the NCDOT Eistoric Bridge Survey. If design plans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the )ro'ect
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Anson
County survey. Anson County GIS /Tax information, and Google Maps are considered valid for the
purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There are no National Register
listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
�Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRI :D
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SU/iVBY RBQU /RGD jorun for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Progranuiaiic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3