20151230 Ver 1_Application_20151130

)�•�
Transportation
November 16, 2015
Wilmington Regula[ory Field Officc
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darling[on Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
ATTN: Liz Hair
NCDOT Coordinaror
Dear Madam:
PAT McCRORY
Governor
NICHOLASJ.TENNYSON
Secremry
Subject: Pre-ConsWCtion No[ification £or proposed replacement of Bridge No. 230243 and
Bridge No. 230245 on SR 1740 over Slap Swamp in Columbus Counry
The North Carolina Departnent of Transportadon (NCDOT) proposes ro replace two exisYing bridges.
The exis[ing bridge 230243, a tluee-span Q@ 173', 1@ 17A `, I@ 1Z7') reinforced concrete ou
[imberjoists stcucNre, will be replaced with a two-span (I � 40', 1@ 45') cored slab (2Y') bridge wi[h
sloping abutments. The existing bridge 230245, a two-span Q@ 17.0', 1@ 17.4') reinForced concre[ed
on tlmber joists stluctuce, will be ceplaced with a single apan (1 @ 70') cored slab (24") bridge with
sloping abuanents. Tra£fic will £ollow an onsi[e de[our during consWCtion. Peananent impac[s [o
jurisdictional resources cover approximately 0.01 acres resulting £rom placement ofthe new bridge.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Preliminary J�risdictional
De[ennination Fonn, pem�i[ drawings, s[ortnwater managemen[ plan and design plans for the above-
referenced projecL The Sta[e Miaimum Crtteria Checklist was comple[ed on 6/25/2012 and copies were
distributed shortly Ihereaftec Additional copies are available upon request.
This project was let on 2/19/2013 and ihe bridge replacement is scheduled [o begin February 2016.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 PermiC All aspects of this projec[ are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a"Sta[e Minimum Criteria Checklist" in acwrdance with 23 CFR 77L115(b} The
NCDOT requests that these ac[ivities be authorized under a Nationwide 3 penni[.
Section 401 Permit: The NCDOT requests ihat these activities be authorized under Wx[er Qualiry
Certification Number 3883. We an[icipate [hat written approval Crom [he NC Depar[ment of Wa[er
Resources will be required.
IFyou have auy questioos or need edditional information, please conqct me at [phone].
Siucerely, J:
;Civ�, /? �� � 'b�G+!.i
� Jxmes y. Rerk �
;' DivisidnEnvironmentalOfficer—Division6
1
cc:
�Nothing Compares�.�_
Smte ofNonh Cazolinz I DePar�ent ofTrmsportatlon I Divisiou 6
1000 Trmsponatiou Drive Fayetteville, NC 28302
910 437 0207

0���� � ����G
�,�y
O '"' Y
O�ce Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. A licant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number: 3886
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certi£cation — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
1f. Is paymen'into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � Yes � No
of impacts. If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacement of bridge 230243 and bridge 230245 on SR 1740 over Slap Swamp
2b. County: Columbus
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Lake Waccamaw
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state NCDOT Project: 17BP.6.R.40
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if �ames J. Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
applicable):
3d. Street address: PO Box 1150
3e. City, state, zip: Fayetteville, NC 28302
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Faxno.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name: Not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephane no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. AgenUConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Notapplicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
Se. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Not applicable
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Bridge 230243 Latitude: 34.350124 Longitude: -78.489366
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
Bridge 230245 Latitude: 34.351646 Longitude: -78.487203
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 2.0 acre
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Slap Swamp
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C; Sw; +
2c. Riverbasin: Lumber
Page 2 of 10

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 at the Project Site include maintained/ disturbed roadside shoulder and forested wetland areas. Land
use in the Project Vicinity is predominately forestry and agriculture with scattered residential properties.
36. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: Approximately 0.3 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 160 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose otthe proposed project: To replace two structurally defcient and functionally obsolete bridges
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Two bridges will be replaced. The
existing bridge 230243, a three-span (1 @ 17.3', 1@ 17.0', 1@ 17.7') reinforced concrete on timberjoists structure, will
be replaced with a two-span (1 @ 40', 1@ 45') cored slab (21 ") bridge with sloping abutments. The existing bridge
230245, a two-span (1 @ 17.0', 1@ 17.4') reinforced concreted on timberjoists structure, will be replaced with a single
span (1 @ 70') cored slab (24") bridge with sloping abutments. Traffic will follow an offsite detour during construction.
Standard road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this propeRy /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments: � Yes � No
none
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ❑ Preliminary 0 Final
❑ Unknown
4c. If yes, who delineated thejurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Mulkey, Inc.
Name (if known): Mark Mickley Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. n/a
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Sb. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
6b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
❑ Yes
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check alt that apply):
� Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 3 of 10
// .
// .
❑ Unknown

2. Wetland Impacts. If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area
impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type ofjurisdiction
number— Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora T
W1 ❑ P� T Temporary flll swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W1 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W2 � P❑ T Permanent fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W2 ❑ P� T Temporary fll swamp � Yes � Corps a 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W2 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps < p,01
❑ No � DWQ
W3 � P❑ T Permanent fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W3 � P❑ T Excavation swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W3 ❑ P� T Temporary fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W3 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W4 ❑ P� T Temporary fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W4 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W5 ❑ P� T Temporary fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W5 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps 0.07
❑ No � DWQ
W6 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps 0.03
❑ No � DWQ
W7 � P❑ T Excavation swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W7 ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps Q Q�
❑ No � DWQ
W8 � P❑ T Permanent fill swamp � Yes � Corps < p,01
❑ No � DWQ
W8 ❑ P� T Temporary fill swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W8 � P❑ T Excavation swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
WS ❑ P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps < 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W9 � P❑ T Permanent fill swamp � Yes � Corps a 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
W9 ❑ P� T Temporary fill swamp � Yes � Corps � p Q�
❑ No � DWQ
� Yes � Corps
W9 � P❑ T Excavation swamp � No � DWQ <0.01
W9 � P� T Hand clearing swamp � Yes � Corps 0.01
❑ No � DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.17 aCres
Page 4 of 10

2h. Comments: Permanent impacts are the result of instaltation of new bridge abutments. Temporary impacts are due to the
installation of erosion control measures.
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. 36. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ❑ P❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
3h. Total sCream and tributary impacts �
3i. Comments: Not applicable. Stream impacts will not occur as a result of this project.
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 type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P�T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
Sa. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total
5g. Comments:
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:
Page 5 of 10

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 an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST f II out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet
Tem ora T im act re uired? � �square feet)
B1 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
62 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑POT ❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed bridges will be replaced in-place. The proposed bridges will provide more effective hydraulic opening than the
existing bridges. Promotion of sheet flow and infltration over rip/rap bank stabilization or grassed surfaces is proposed.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented
during the construction phase. Drill shafts will not be utilized.
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 � No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
26. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 6 of 10

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:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm � ❑ cool ❑cold
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.
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 ❑ Yes � No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
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
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ❑ Yes � No
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? Not applicable
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The Stormwater Management Plan is designed in accordance with NPDES Permit #NCS000250. See attached permit
drawings and stormwater management plan.
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
� DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project? Not applicable
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply � ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes � No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
Sa. 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

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � yes
use of public (federal/state) land? ❑ No
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 ❑ Yes � No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. 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.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: Not applicable
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, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � 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 � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
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.
Not applicable
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.
Not applicable
Page 9 of 10

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ No
habitat? � Yes
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � yes
impacts? ❑ No
� Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
Sd. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program, USFWS website, USFWS scoping letter (see attached) and feld surveys.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fsh habitat? ❑ Yes � No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
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 � No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties signifcant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCDOT PDEA — Human Environment Section
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Sa. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? � Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project site is located in Zone AE of FIRM Map Number 3720125100J and the bridges were studied using "Limited
Detailed" methods. The proposed bridge has been designed to improve the existing conveyance.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Maps/ NC Floodplain Mapping Program
� � .
� I� i
James J. Rerko November 16,
r�.,�� (,'8+,,� 9'u�� 2o�a
ApplicanUAgenYs Printed Name � Applicar�tUAgent's Signatufe Date
(AgenYs signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
.� is provided.
�
Page 10 of 10

TIP 17BP.6.R.40 (Bridges 230243& 230245) Columbus County
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
James J. Rerko, PWS NCDOT Box 1105 Fayetteville, NC 28302
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:0.5
miles south of the intersection of US 74 and SR 1824
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/boroughColumbus City: Lake Waccamaw
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.3508°
Pick List, Long. -78.4884° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Slap Swamp
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: :76 ft.width (ft) and/or
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.17acres.
Cowardin Class: forested
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non-Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
1

request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicanYs acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there `inay be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
2

� Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: .
� Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
� U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
� U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Tabor City, NC.
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: .
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): .
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify): .
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarilv been verified bv the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
3
B�lpe'3 Pd�`
Signature and date of'
� person requesting preliminary JD
�(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

17BP.6.R.40 Bridge 230243 & 230245)
Estimated
Site Cowardin amount of
number Latitude Longitude Class aquatic
resource in
review area
Bridge 34.3501 -78.4894 Riverine 42LF
243
1-9 34.3508 -78.4884 Riverine 0.17 acre
Bridge 34.3516 -78.4872 Riverine 34LF
245
0
Columbus County
Class of
aquatic
resource
Non-section 10
—non-wetland
Non-section 10
-wetland
Non-section 10
—non-wetland

��,+,1�"a'� f►�i���1��1
.�A1.�[�_���� ��r�4�,��
. _ � b r � ► • ►~ r � s �� � #r ���J
� "��
h
\
. � ��.
.1't
�i�
�
e.�Ue —
�. �l
N
;..� -•'�a � ,
_.:., u.,�,�.
� � �
�- L,
r-
JA�
i
f;
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Bridge No. 243 over Slap Swamp on SR 1740 (Old Lake Road)
WBS No. 17BP.6.R.37
�`�,, �''�� Columbus County, North Carolina
`g1 1!� '
S c M ,•\
�.� �ti.
a �
� �
'roject Vicinity , �,,,,
i
�
U �Y '�.
.
/ 'k
�\ North Carolina
� � Department of Transportation
* ��, �
1 \
�
� .'r
' —�--�.F. � .. t ..
� �'' ��•1� .
� � `,ti
� , .
':-� .
�'�.
� '��. � \� +1 .
�M. . �
� - • ,f
N. .. `,.. �J � �
� ����`ti' �-- �..
�
. -t.., ..�\```� _
fz
�CS
��
4 ��,
�, � .
� ^.\...�...__ _ _..
�} '
�
"� �- � . `
� ��
� k'q � `�
'� ' - '"�r. � .
—.ti ,
i !
` `� �-.. . . � ~�
' L .. . . . �_ '`�� � .
� , -!\ - -- _ .
��-�o / �
� ,
�
t
� �� �� �\ �
,�-} '� `� . . ,
�� vy f � !
-- it `'*.._ •: �
. 1 " � - - .. . . - - .�—�. _.. �.' _ �t. •._—. . �' _ _ " _ . .
`�! . _"
' . ' _ .__ _�.�,-.. _ �
0
4
t
,� n .i
.;
.,,�1 �i
-_ _, ' .•
,
- �,4
:`
Legend
o Bridge No. 243
` __.__� County Boundary
— NCDOT Roads
_�� Railroads
^ Streams/Waterbodies
Soume: NCOOT, NCOneMapantl USGS
Figure Oale: 4/10/2012
o i,000 z,000
� Feel

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjectlSite: Bndge 243 City/County: Columbus Sampling Date: 3/27/12
ApplicantlOwner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: Up WA06
Investigator(s): Matk Mickley, Mulkey, Inc. Section, Township, Range: �ananish
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): �O�e g�oPe � ��, 4%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T LaC 34.35049 Long: 78�48g3$ Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: �ohnston loam, frequently flooded NWI classifcation: Upland
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for Ihis [ime of year? Yes X No Qf no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significanlly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" presenl? Yes %< No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Qf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Yes %< No Is the Sampled Area
Yes No %�
— x within a Wetland? Ves No X
Yes No
Wetland Hydmlogy Indicators: Secondarv Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired� check all [hat aoolv) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Wa[er (Ai) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (BS)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR ll) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (61) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposi[s (B3) _ Recent Iron Redudion in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surtace (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) X FAC-Neutral Test (DS)
WaterStained Leaves (69) Sphagnum moss (DS) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ No %� Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes _ No %� Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology PresentT Yes No %<
includes ca illa frin e —
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No primary hydrologic indicators
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Reqion — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling PoinC Up WA06
30 ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
TreeStratum (Plotsize: ) % Cover Soecies? 5[aWs
Number of Dominan[ Species
1. Acer rubrum FAC 5 X F/aCW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2. Liouidambar styraciflua FAC 15 X FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3� Species Across All Strata:
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5� That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
fi.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
4 (A�
fi �B�
&7% (A/B)
8.
Total % Coverof: Multiolvbv:
50 % of total cover:
Saolinql5hrub Stratum (Pbt size: 15 ft �
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
20 =TotalCover
10 pp � of total cover: 4
50 % of total cover. �
Herb Stra[um (Plot size: 5 ft �
1. Festuca soo.
2. Trillium spp.
3. P.Ilium canadense FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50°/ of total cover. 33
Woodv Vine S[retum (Plot size: 30 ft. �
1. Toxicodendron radicans FAC
p. Vitis rotundifolia FAC
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
20 % of total cover �
45 X
15 x
5 FACU
65 - Total Cover
20% oftotalcover: �3
5 X FAC
5 X FAC
� � = Total Cover
50 % of total cover: 5 20 % oi total covec Z
OBL species x 1= �
FACW species x 2= �
FAC species x 3= �
FACU species x 4 = �
UPL species x 5= �
Column Totals: � (q) � (g)
Prevalence Index = B1A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50 %
3- Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be presen[, unless dislurbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
heigh[.
Sapling/5hrub - Woody planls, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 328 ft(1 m) tall.
Herb-All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 328 fl tali.
Woody vine-All woody vines greater [han 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Ves X No_
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:Up WA06
Profle Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the ahsence of i�dicators,)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl Color (moist) % Color (moisll °5 Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10 YR 4/2 100 scl Fill
6-12 10 YR 5/fi 100 scl Fill
'T e: C=Concenlration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Mahix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Localion: PL=POre Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Intlicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surtace (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Thin Dark Surface (59) (LRR S, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A70) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,6)
_ Hydrogen Sulfde (A4) _ Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, UJ _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) {LRR U) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Very Shallow Dark Surtace (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Mad (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A11) _ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, Tj 'Indicators of hydmphytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Sudace (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 6, S) _ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA �50A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped MaVix (S6) _ Anomalous Brighl Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C,'153D)
Dark Surtace (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No %�
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and GWf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/5ite: Bndge 243 City/County: Colum6us Sampling Date: 3/27/12
ApplicanVOwner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: WA06
Investigator(s): Mark Mickl2y, Mulkey, Inc. Seclion, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swamp Local relief (concave, convex, none): nO�e Slope (%): �%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat 34.35057 Long: �8.48931 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: �ohnston loam, frequently flooded NWI classifcation: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of year? Yes %< No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes %< No
Are Vegelation , Soil _, or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? Qf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Yes %< No _ �s the Sampled Area
Yes X No _ N,�thin a Wetland? Yes %� No
Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondarv Indicators (min'mum of two reouiredl
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired� check all that aoolv) _ Surface Soil Crecks (B6)
x Surtace Water (A1) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
x High Water Table (A2) _ Mad Deposits (615) (LRR U) x Drainage Pattems (810)
%� Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Moss Trim Lines (816)
%� Water Marks (B1) _ Ozidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Cra�sh Burrows (CS)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visihle on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (BS) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) X FAC-Neutral Test (DS)
X Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Sphagnum moss (�8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
SurfaceWaterPresent? Yes X No_ Depth(inches): 2'4"
WaterTablePresent? Yes x No_ Depth(inches): ���
Saturetion Presen[? Yes %� No _ Depth (inches): ��� Wetland Hydrology PresentT Yes %� No
includes ca illa frin e —
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Buttressed trees
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plol size: 30 ft. � / Cover Species? Status
1, Nvssa biflora OBL 40 X OBL
2. Taxodium distichum OBL Z5 X OBL
3. Acer ru6rum FAC 15 FACW
4. Liquidam6ar stvraciflua FAC 5 FAC
5. Pinustaeda FAC 2 FACW
6.
7.
8.
8� =TOtalCover
50 % of total cover: 44 20 % of total cover: � 7
SaolinolShrub Stra[um (Plot size: 15 ft �
�, Acerrubrum FAC 15 X FAC
2. Taxodium disfichum 08L 10 X OBL
3, Ilex opaca FAC g FAC
4. Sabal minor FACW 15 X FACW
5.
6.
7.
8.
45 = Total Cover
50 % of total covec Z3 20 % of total cover: 9
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 � )
7. Carex soo. 15
Z. Woodwardia virginica OBL 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50 % of to[al cover: 10
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
t Lonicera iaponica FAC
p, Toxicodendron radicans FAC
3. Vitis mtundifolla FAC
4.
5.
X
X OBL
20 = Total Cover
20% of total covec 4
5 X FAC
5 X FAC
10 X FAC
Z� = Total Cover
50 % of total cover � � 20 % of total cover 4
Sampling Point: WA06
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FACt
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of �ominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC:
9 (A)
10 �e�
90% (A/B)
Tolal % Cover of: MWtiolv bv:
OBL species x 1= 0
FACW species x 2= �
FAC species x 3= �
FACU species x 4 = �
UPL species x 5= 0
Column Totals: (q) � (g)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vege[ation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50 %
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless dislurbed or problemalic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast heigh[ (DBH), regardless of
heigh[.
SapiinglShrub— Woody plan[s, ezcluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 328 ft(1 m) tall.
Herb—All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 328 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 328 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No_
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Samplinct Point: WA06
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moisll % Cobr (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10 YR 4/1 100 S�
8-12 10 YR 4/2 g5 10 YR 416 5 C M sl
'T e: C=COncentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced MaVix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=POre Linin , M=Ma[rix.
Hydric Soil IndiCatore: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Pro6lematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (58) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Hislic Epipedon (A2) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 5)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150qB)
_ Hydrogen Sulfde (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Mairix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stretified Layers (A5) X Depletetl Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Sur(ace (F7) _ Retl Parent Ma[erial (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Mad (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A11) _ Depleted Ochric (F71) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F72) (LRR q P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegeiation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Surtace (F13) (LRR P, T, U) weuand hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR Q S) _ Oelta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLR,4150A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (55) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ S[ripped Matriz (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surtace (57) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Sail PreseM? Yes %� No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

r�,"i!i ;�iin�y�s���
s.�c�_{���r,�r �.�
r�r7t�r./����itl�I►�jr +r
*IY?��1�`'�.�
� �
� .` , - ���: �.
�1 :�. .� � I �
� �_
E'�'I�� � � akr il-0
'..:� 9,'1dN
"''�• 1.fdt Il.,ras�. �
�' r._
til V !'If " ;, � �::D.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Bridge No. 245 over Slap Swamp on SR 1740 (Old Lake Road)
WBS No. 17BP.6.R.38
`'.,� � Columbus County, North Carolina
'`gj il"
1
r• •�
- .. �
� � ' '�
Project Vicinity u� , �„_
/i
!
47 ^ { A�r a l
t � �,
� . ♦
?'
AK 1
, :l I
. "' , ,. .m ..;�_` . 1 ♦ ' ..
+\ ' . `
, '�
'�'.
�
. : : �,..
���
; ;
,
� ys �
,.� _ �� "'s. �-\
,,: �,�� --
. , � . . ^'.,� .
N
��,s°' °,
North Carolina
5�� Department of Transportation
\.�v A°
+
�' _ �
aa
- - - ' T�'�
� ' �LWktM.T�'v
Sj � � �
i
l �
- , -' . . �;� � � . .-.�, f . ..
n
� _ �
. ' tl� �-T/ r �.
,�
. i �� . ;� - � ' „ , !'d
l . . �� '
�
�si�- ° ;t A!e
, l. i
.� , ".�_, � _. "� .
� �,� �, :�, , � Legend
,
� ' � i-.,,,� � �. .. �—��'� O Bridge No. 245
��z
'\ . .. \�.�- - --. - � . '-- --:CountyBoundary
` ��'� � , � L -----'
�:r� .. ' � . NCDOT Roads
� �� . �� �G Railroads
�' `� j '� --� — Streams/Waterbodies
. �: �"__ � ; ,.
i,-�
� ' ���� � � � -
. , A: y � ,� .. Sovrce: NCOOT, NC OneMap antl USGS
. ♦
v , ,�i '. �jt f FigureDale:4.f0/2012
. ,- .' _.. . - � .. .I a i.000 z.00a
�-- �•_ � �re� . _... __�.�
_ —____. .... <`_ . �Feet

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Bridge 245 City/County: Columbus Sampling Date: 3/27/12
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: Up WA05
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley, Mulkey, Ina Section, Township, Range� Wananish
Landform (hillslope, terrece, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 34.35181 Long�. 78.48705
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston loam, frequently flooded NWI classifcation: U
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No _ Qf no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
_ Slope ( / �; 4o�a
Datum: WGS 84
land
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 Vege[ation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Presenl?
HYDROLOGY
Yes x No Is the Sampled Area
Yes No X �yithin a Wetland? Yes No X
Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondarv Indicators (min mum of two reauiredl
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reau'red� check all that aoolvl _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surtace Water (A1) _ Aqua[ic Fauna (813) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (BS)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) _ Drainage Pattems (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Waler Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (CS)
_ �rift �eposits (83) _ Recen[ Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturalion Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surtace (C7) _ Geomorphic Posilion (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, UJ
Field Observations:
Surtace Water Present? Yes _ No x Depth (inches):
WaterTablePresent? Yes_ No x Depth(inches):
SaWration Present? Yes_ No %� Depth (inches): Wetland HydralogyPresent? Yes No %<
includes ca illa frin e — —
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No primary hydrologic indicators
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
30 ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator
TreeStratum (Plotsize: ) % Cover Soecies? Status
1. Acer rubrum FAC 5 X FAC
2. Quercus laurifolia FACW 5 X FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
50 % of total cover. 5
Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft �
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50 % of total cover: �
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft �
1. Festuca spp.
2. Trillium spp.
3. Ailium canadense FACU
4.
5.
fi.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
10 - Total Cover
20 % of total cover. Z
= Total Cover
20 % of [o[al covec �
45 X
15 x
5 FACU
65 - Total Cover
50 % of total cover: 33 20 % of to[al cover: 13
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plol size: 30 ft. �
L Toxicodendron radicans FAC 5 X FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
5 = Total Cover
50%oftotalcover: 3 20%oftotalcover �
Sampling Point: Up WA05
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 �A�
5 �B�
fi0% (AIB)
Tolal % Coverof: Multiolvbv�
OBL species x 1= 0
FACW species x 2= �
FAC species x 3= �
FACU species x 4 = �
UPL species x 5= �
Column Tolals: (A) � �g�
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation
%� 2 - Dominance Test is >50 %
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Problema[ic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Veaetation Strata�
Tree - Woody plants, exduding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameler at breas[ height (DBH), regardless of
heigh[.
Sapiing/Shrub- Woody plants, excluding vines, less
Ihan 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m) tall.
Herb-All herbaceous (non-woody) planls, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 328 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No _
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling PointUp WA05
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Fea[ures
(inches) Cobrlmoist) % Color(moist) % �� Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10 YR 4!2 100 scl Fi�l
6-12 10 YR 5!6 100 scl Fill
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Malrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1) _ Polyvalue 8elow Surface (58) (LRR 5, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Thin Dark Surtace (S9) (LRR 5, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hislic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150PyB)
_ Hydrogen Sulide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T}
_ Stratifed Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, 7, U) _ Redox Dark Surtace (F6) (MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Surtace (F7) _ Red Parent Materiai (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) _ Redoz Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow �ark Surtace (TF72)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surtace (Al2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetalion and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150AJ _ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be presen[,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (57) (LRR Q S) _ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 157) unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F78) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (SS) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (56) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153Dj
Dark Surtace (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
�epth (inches): Hydric Soil Present7 Ves No X
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecVSite: Bridge 245 Ciry/Counry: Columbus Sampling Date: 3/27/12
ApplicanUOwner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point WP`05
Investigator(s): Matk Mickley, Mulkey, Inc. Section, Township, Range: Wa�na�iSh
Landform (hillslope, [errace, etc.): Swamp Local relief (concave, convex, none): nO�e Slope (%): �%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 34.35203 �o�9: 78.48729 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsfon loam, ffeqUentlyflooded NWI classifcation: PFO
Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for [his time of year? Yes %< No Qf no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology _ signiticantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes %� No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, ezplain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is the Sampletl Area
within a Wetland7 Yes %� No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondarv Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired� check all [hat aoolv) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
%� Surface Water (A1) _ Aquatic Fauna (B'13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
%� High Water Table (A2) _ Marl Deposi[s (B15) (LRR ll) %< Drainage Pattems (B10)
%� Saturalion (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
%� Water Marks (B1) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season WaterTable (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence ot Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ DriR Deposits (B3) _ Recent Iron Reduclion in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Satura[ion Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surtace (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (BS) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) X FAC-Neutral Test (DS)
X WaterStained Leaves (89) _ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
SurtaceWaterPresent? Yes X No_ Depth(inches): Z-4"
WaterTablePresent? Yes %� No_ Depth(inches): ���
Saturalion Present? Yes %� No _ Depth (inches): ��� Wetland Hydrology Present7 Yes %� No
includes ca illa frin e — —
Describe Recorded Data (sUeam gauge, monitoring well, aeriai photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Buttressed trees
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and GWf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. sampiing Point: WA05
30 ft. AbsoWte Dominant Indicator Oominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Nyssa biflora OBL 40 X OBL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2. Tazodium distlr.hum OBL 5 OBL
Total Number of Dominan[
3. P.cer rubrum FAC 20 X FACW Species Across All Strata:
4. Liquidambar sNraciflua FAG 5 FAC
Percen[ of Dominant Species
5. Ulmus americana FACW 2 FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
s.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7 (A)
8 (6�
ae�io ��vs>
Total % Coverof: Mulliolv bv
8. -
50 % of total cover 3fi
SaolinqlShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft �
1, Acerrubrum FAC
2. Taxodium disiichum O8L
3, Quercus laurifolia FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
�. Carexspo.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
72 = Total Cover
20 % of total cover: 14
5 X FAC
5 X OBL
5 X FACW
�� =TOtalCover
50 % of ro[al cover: 8 20 % of total covec 3
5ft �
50%oftotalcovec 8
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. �
1. Lonicera iaponica FAC
p, Toxicadendron radicans FAC
3.
4.
5.
50 % of total cover: �
hological adaptations below).
15 X
15 = Total Cover
20 % of total cover 3
5 X FAC
5 X FAC
OBL species x 1= �
FACW species x 2= �
FAC species x 3= �
FACU species x 4= �
UPL species x 5= �
Column Totals (A) � (g)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
%� 2 - Dominance Tes[ is >50°/
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plan[s, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) 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 328 ft(1 m) tall.
Herb-All herbaceous (non-woody) planis, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 328 ft in
height.
1 O Hydrophytic
_ = Total Cover Vegetation
20 % of total cover. 2 Present? Yes X No _
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOI L Sampling Point: WA05
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl Color (moistl % Cobr fmoistl % �� Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10 YR 4/1 100 sl
8-12 10 YR 4!2 g5 10 YR 4/6 5 C M sl
'T e: C=Concenlration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. �Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Thin Dark Sur(ace (S9) (LRR 5, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ 81ack Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outsitle MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfde (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratifed Layers (A5) X Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _ Redox Dark Surtace (F6) (MLRA �53B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ t cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
�epleled Below Dark Surtace (A11) _ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLR4151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Surtace (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA'150A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (SS) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark SurFace (57) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if abserved):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present7 Yes %� No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0