20070401 Ver 1_Application_20070308

.lt
~~~
-~
~.v :~
~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
rq .~,
°,r~rf" ~ J,4?"2 .
~~
~~'~~s ~ti~ ~'ti <'~~~j , ~,+:
~. s'~.ti ~~r;,~l, ~.~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~~~ c~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 29, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Ms. Jennifer Frye
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0704p1
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 90 over
Little Coharie Creek on SR 1214, Sampson County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1214 (4); State Project No. 8.2281601; TIP No. B-4269; WBS Element
33610.1.1; Division 3.
Please find enclosed the permit drawings, roadway plans, the Categorical Exclusion (CE), and
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for the above-mentioned project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 90 over Little
Coharie Creek on SR 1214 (Boykin Bridge Rd.) in Sampson County. Currently the Let Date is
May 15, 2007.
The project involves replacing the bridge on the existing location with a 3-span, cored-slab
bridge, approximately 160 feet long and 30 feet wide. Traffic will be detoured off-site during
construction. Proposed permanent impacts to riverine wetlands are 0.03 ac.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: Little Coharie Creek is one of two perennial streams that exist within the
project study area. The other perennial stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Little Coharie
Creek, is located in the southwestern portion of the project area. The streams are located within
the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin, Subbasin 03-06-19. Little Coharie Creek [Index No. 18-68-
1-17] has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C Sw by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality and is in Hydrologic Unit 03030006. Little Coharie Creek is not designated as a North
Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River, nor is it listed as a
303(d) stream. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1596 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

,~.
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile of the
project study area.
Permanent Impacts: NCDOT anticipates limited permanent impacts for this project. This project
will require 0.03 ac of mechanized clearing in wetlands and 0.003 ac of fill in wetlands resulting
from roadway fill.
Temporary Impacts: NCDOT does not anticipate any temporary impacts for this project.
Temporary workpads or causeways are unnecessary for the demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge.
Utility Impacts: There are no jurisdictional impacts due to utilities for this project. Aerial power
lines will have a breaker attached during bridge construction activities, and thus will not need to
be relocated during construction. Telephone lines will be relocated using directional boring
techniques, and will not impact any jurisdictional resources.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 90 includes aneight-span superstructure composed of a reinforced concrete deck on
timber joists and a substructure composed of timber caps on timber piles. It is likely that all
components can be removed without any appreciable debris falling into the water.
All measures will betaken to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible:
• Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction
• The bridge will be built using top-down construction and can therefore be built without the
need of a causeway or work pad
• The number of bents in the water is being reduced from three for the existing bridge to one
for the new bridge
• There will be no deck drains over the creek
• In compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the
design of the project
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicated that the river basin likely supports
NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources. However, after discussing the moratorium with Ron
Sechler of NMFS, it has been decided to eliminate the moratorium from the project
commitments.
2

Mitigation
NCDOT proposes to mitigate for the 0.03 ac riverine wetland impacts by providing 0.02 ac of the
surplus restored riverine wetlands from project B-4271 (Bridge No. 98 over Big Creek on SR
1246, Action ID 200300883) in Sampson County (See attached Wetland Restoration Plan).
B-4269 is located 6.3 miles southeast of B-4271. Both projects are located in Sampson County
and are within the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030006). Due to the close
proximity of the two projects, NCDOT proposes to debit this surplus of restored wetlands at B-
4271 at a 1:1 ratio to offset impacts for B-4269.
NCDOT does not propose compensatory mitigation for the remaining 0.01 ac of wetland impacts
due to the relative low quality of these wetlands.
Federally Protected Species
As of January 29, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four protected species for
Sampson County (Table 1). Descriptions of the protected species excluding American chaffseed
are provided in the attached NRTR. Habitat surveys were conducted on September 14, 2004 for
red-cockaded woodpecker and pondberry. No suitable habitat for these species will be impacted
by the project. American chaffseed was not on the protected species list for Sampson County at
the time that the NRTR and Categorical Exclusion were written. Thus, a habitat survey for
American chaffseed was conducted on December 12, 2006. Species and habitat descriptions for
this species are included below. No suitable habitat for any of the listed species was found within
the Project Study Area. As such, the Biological Conclusion is "No Effect" for all listed species.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Flowers P"resent: May -August (1-2 months after a fire)
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems (or stems branched only at
the base) with large, purplish-yellow, tubular flowers that are borne singly on short stalks in the
axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves (bracts). The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic,
stalkless, 2 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches) long, and entire. chaffseed fruits are long, narrow
capsules enclosed in a sac-like structure that provides the basis for the common name. Fruits
mature from early summer in the South to October in the North. Schwalbea is a hemiparasite
(partially dependent upon another plant as host). Like most of the hemiparasitic
Scrophulariaceae, it is not host-specific, so its rarity is not due to its preference for a specialized
host. Currently, 51 populations are known, including one in New Jersey, one in North Carolina,
43 in South Carolina, four in Georgia, and two in Florida. chaffseed was never considered to be
common, but populations have declined and the range has seriously contracted in recent decades.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry
soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained
savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass-
sedge systems. chaffseed is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water
3

tables to maintain the crucial open to partly-open conditions that it requires. Historically, the
species existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs
and plains inland where frequent, naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax
communities. Under these conditions, herbaceous plants such as Schwalbea were favored over
trees and shrubs.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A habitat survey for American chaffseed was conducted on December 12, 2006. Habitats within
the project area such as bottomland hardwood forest, cypress-gum swamp, and early successional
cut-over are not subject to frequent fire, and do not resemble requisite habitats for this species as
described above. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on
January 5, 2007 and revealed no records of existing populations of American chaffseed within
one mile of the project area. Thus, this project will not affect any populations of American
chaffseed.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Sampson County
ommon Name cienti><ic Name tatus abitat iological
oxclusion

merican alligator lligator eatened
/A
/A
ississi iensis (S/A)
ed-cockaded icoides borealis ndangered o o Effect
ood ecker
merican chaffseed chwalbea americana ndan ered o o Effect
ondbe indera melissi olia ndan ered o o Effect
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing
two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
The NCDOT hereby requests that this project be authorized by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. If there are any questions, please contact
Mr. David E. Bailey at debaileyC~dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www. ncdot. org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
4

Sincerely
~:
~~
~t/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
w/out attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA

Wetland Restoration Plan
At Bridge No. 98 over Big Swamp
on SR 1246
Sampson County
TIP B-4271
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1246 (2)
WBS No. 33612.1.1
February, 2007
The North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation (NCDOT) will perform on-site
mitigation for wetland impacts at the SR 1246 overpass of Big Swamp. This mitigation
site occurs within Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) B-4271. The project
begins approximately 390 feet west of Bridge No. 98 and continues for approximately
490 feet to the west of the bridge. NCDOT will restore approximately 0.06 acres of
coastal plain small stream swamp wetland as onsite mitigation for B-4271. The roadway
project will impact 0.04 acres of unavoidable wetlands, leaving approximately 0.02 acres
of riverine wetland restoration assets on-site. NCDOT plans to use these assets to offset
impacts associated with B-4269.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in Sampson County, southwest of Roseboro, approximately 3 miles
from the intersection of NC 242 and SR 1246 (Butler Island Rd.) close to the Sampson
and Cumberland County line. The project study area land use is primarily comprised of
agricultural and forested land.
The Natural Resources Technical Report for TIP B-4271, dated March 2003, provides
further details concerning existing roadway and project study area conditions.
The existing embankments of the approaches to Bridge No. 98 are located within the
floodplain of Big Swamp within a wetland community known as a Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp. The wetland is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and a herbaceous layer of
cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The transition zone where the wetland grades into the
existing causeway slope is dominated by cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
DESIGN
The proposed wetland mitigation will consist of restoring 0.06 acres of riverine wetland.
Restoration will involve removing causeway fill and transition area along both

approaches to Bridge No. 98 to match the adjacent wetland elevation. Representative spot
elevations will be taken in all four quadrants of the bridge project within the adjacent
reference wetland to determine target elevations. Excavated areas will be ripped and
disked prior to planting of the site if necessary.
The Natural Environment Unit shall be contacted to provide construction oversight to
ensure that the wetland mitigation area is constructed appropriately.
VEGETATION PLANTING
The restoration area will be planted following the successful completion of the site
grading. The site will be planted with bottomland hardwood species including at least
three of the following: water oak (Quercus nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
MONITORING
Upon successful completion of construction, the following monitoring strategy is
proposed for the mitigation site. NCDOT will document monitoring activities on the site
in an annual report distributed to the regulatory agencies.
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
No specific hydrological monitoring is proposed for this restoration site. The target
elevation will be based on the reference wetland and verified during construction.
Constructing the site at the adjacent wetland elevation will ensure the hydrology in the
restored area is similar to the hydrology in the reference area.
VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
NCDOT shall monitor the restoration site by visual observation and photo points for
survival and aerial cover of vegetation. NCDOT shall monitor the site for a minimum of
three years or until the site is deemed successful. Monitoring will be initiated upon
completion of the site planting.

~~
~~~
,_
1269 ~ ~
~~~
~~
~, _ c~,seBo
'~
,_.,
~ a„ -
of
~ ~~ 1240
1290 ~
_J
_~
,z,.
--=~~ , .
_---
• 1240 ~
_ 1~~ 1272
-~-~
1 ~
t2t6 t2i~s
.`
1216
i-~ 1 ~~
ti ~_.
l ~, ,?..
,S _ - ~ Minim 9O z
6 _ _ ~
e p~ q C pAb~p F OJEC
s
rFN ~ T yp_N___-~.,-__.
WETLAND PERMIT
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
SHEET ~ OF
SI'F'E `_
nn~o -gi a„ ~- _
~1.
DETOUR ROUTE
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33610.1.1 tB-269)
REPLACE BRIDGE X90 OVER LITTLE
COHARIE CREEg ON SR 121
~'JOPTH CuF?OLI?JQ

t i
~ W]E7[°1[eAI~~ 1L]E~]~I~T~ ~
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
7~
?~~
PROPOSED BRIDGE
WL
WETLAND
WL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• r " DENOTES MECHANIZED
e r : r
" ' CLEARING
-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
~~- TOP OF BANK
-••• WE EDGE OF WATER
- - ~- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--~-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- - PL - PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. . _ WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
- TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE ~ DGRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
- EAB- ~ EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -~- - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X X X LIVE STAKES
X X X
BOULDER
--- CO1R FIBER ROLLS
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT:33610.1.1 (B-~d269)
REPLACE BRIDGE X90 OVER LITTLE
COHARIE CREEg ON SR 121
SHEET ~ OF

~
p ~/ ~.'

2

~
O

~\ 0

~~
O
~~) ~
~

~
nn ~\
~ JI
\ ~ ~
1 ~
h

~

1~0/

~ ioo

~

`~

'S

o
~

~ to ~~

~ ~
~
-
i
~~

-~ J
C~

-~
//~t; J

125

O ~ --~
~~

~ ~~

o

1

o
O
?f ~ Q
~~~ ~
~
_ ~
1,

~' ~

I
132
' ~ \ ~
`,~

,oa i
~
~
`~ ~ _
(\~\Q
\ \ ) f )oa 'McDani
~~ ~ •~ ~
l
l
~
/ ~ r I/
1/
~ r
'
/
~s
411 M' I
~~~ J
~- .~ ~ o
~~
~~
~
~

, ~
r
~. ~
,
~~~ ~
~~ ~ \ ~ 9 ~J- 1 ~~~
\ ~.~ 0 1'V ~~.
~~ ~ ~ 's~
~ )
~~ ~ ~ /

~`~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33610.1.1 (B-~4269)
REPLACE BRIDGE A90 OVER LITTLE
COHARIE CREEg ON SR 121
SHEET ~ OF

n
z

O

~~
C
~
Vs

A

CT
7 3

~Ii O
~ o

0
O~

n

~,
c

n

A

Z

r
h

~
x
to
m ~
~
O

-~ ~
~o

z
o n
0 0
~ ~ ro
m o ~
r
~ b ~ p
z
~ o ~ o
'" ~ y s
n -~i
z ~ x
y Y ~
p

~ -
f 'A
-~ V
G
'~
=~ C~1
~
o ~ 'xJ
a

z .~
~
to z
ti

a
'~
O z (n
D •° m
r

v
0
O
r T
~
'
o _
o
~ ~

N 0
O ~
+
O `.-'
O
f"
rn
o ~
~

~
~ N ,-.
~ C
~ n K ~
O ~ CD
(D ~
d
~
~
0
0 0
0 ~
T
~~-~
o W A a~ m

O ~ N T ~
O ~ 7 ~ ~

Q CC
G
N m
m
~ n ~
o
o ,-.
~~~~~ Z
o

o
°
a ...
v ~' ° ~
~' ~ D

0

0
~ ('N
~~ ~.
~ m
~
y
0 o ~
v~ v m
v 2
O O ~ ~ N
a ~° m
~
~ a m

n
~ ~

o
~ _
'~
°o v> >'n ~
n ~
`~ .D

~ D
n

o m
d ~ ~ ~ -{
~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ C
o N ~ ~
3

D
~
m c ~
~
o ~ ~ ~~ D
~ C7
m

v
~ ~

o ~ s x
3 -o ~ ~
~ D
-I
mv~ .
~ m
~~_~
m m o ~

-i 3 ~ X .D
n
o ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~
_
N N O
~ ~
O ~
~ to fD ~

~~ ~ -
m ~
~,

r a
11 JL ~ ®Jl 11_e JL ~ ~L 1L ® V V ~ 1L~ 1L ~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL ND. NAMES ADDRESSES
100 BADGER CT.
1 HENRY CARR GLINT®N, N.C. 28~4~1
3 CALVIN SURLES 9965 BAYKIN BRIDGE
R®SEB®R®, N.C. 28382

~ 1 V•' I I i t I I i 1.
II II ~ ~\
I II \
~, \
~I I I ~
II
~ ~ ~ ~~
II
I eevls~oNS ~ ~.. ~ ,~
---------------
------------------------ ~I II ~~--- ~~---------------------------------
- -- -- -------------------------------
-21~uG14:59 °--° -- -- ------------------------------------'~-- L----------------'---------------
euLcs\cedd\64269_hyd_prm_wet.dgn ----------°--------------I I ~I -~= ~ ~,----°------------------------
zr AT HY~~154~ ---------------- -- -- ------------------'-----------------
II
II II ~ ~
~~ II ~ ~ I
II II ~ iY
II III ~~
II ILI `°
~ ~ II II
o I
m II II
' II II
a ~ II II r C7
° II II ~ ~ I
11 ~
II II ~ 0 Z
II I~ ~ ~~~
~ II I ~ ~ i
// W m /
~~ I I E ~" ~" / µ I
/ II ~ t n /
~ III ~~ O ~ I i
II
,/ C '
II ~ ~~ ~ ~
II w I O
I I
o I ,
° ~ III I,I I I ` n /5+00 ~ ~ i
~~ Y I I
I
~ A
Q \\ ~ I O I b Y
\ ~\ ~ ~ ~ / /'y I I I
r ~ \ ~ I I ~
\ /
°° n ~ m~ I ~ I i f
~ fl ~ ~ ~ ,' /
m ~
/ ~ av' ~
r
E 'I~ \ i µ
u c
O ~n ~ I ' ~ '
T
_ _-ew___ _ ~ n I v°i
~ ~
/~/ k Ic
.. .E
~ ~ -
~ Y~
.-rf °° ~ Np~ 3 1
~ .~ .. ..
.. .. ..
\~e ~ ~
r. /
I /
"~
I k .' ~
I /
~ I "- ~J~ b
o ISM ni/ O k \
8 ~ I '"
I
I
I 1
~ \` a
I I I ~ n
~ ~, ~
. II s
rn k .~I n I '10100
II ~
I
~ I
~ \ I~
- ~: e
It [9 ~ ~
~ ;~~ ~I a
{ 1
~,
.~ ~ y \
' I
I
((']] 4
S ~ ~
_ + k Z
~ I
~ ~ . I S
~ t ~ II I I ~ ~ k (:""
~ '~ N g
~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ t7
~ ~ O k I . I' ~ b
I I I ~ ./~
I ~ Q ~
Q ~ ~ ~ ~//
z m ~4 r: ~~ ~ r~~~
z ~ $
° o ' ~ ~ w
~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ gro
m ~ cn
D ~ /
D
z ,_._, ~ I ~ s o
Z
N `~ ~ r ' /4 ~ 25'~
~ ~ ~ ~
m 4 I~ i ~. /~, ~ ~ ~~
I /
I 9z" ~ ~
.o~ / _ ~
K / rpA~~ O
/ ~ Z
/ / _
/ / ~'~ i
I ~ / / k Z ~ ~
/ / z ~~ a
~ I y o
I
... ,.~,,
i

-AUG-200yy6 pp13:512
~SUSERNAME~$~ggb4269_rdy_tsh.dgn
09/08/99
CU11lTRACT:
o 0

O
V: -~
~
O
lh
N ;~

~
o
~
o 1
o ~
n
~
s
o =
s
~
o
`"
o ~

C
o _ _

gg
~ b
0 N N
N < -~v<u a
~
II II II II II II

~ P
0 _+ O~ N
0. 0 0 ~ Ch b
~ ~ ;e~e~e°oo
_ ~
~

-~ r
o m r
m
-iz
a c> z
c~
r -+
x -~
z
r
m cn
z ~
~
o
_ ~ ~
oc -'<
m 'tJ
~ ~
„ v ~
-o O
~ ~
~~ ~
~
0 0
~~ o
~ h

m m
~ n
m
n t~

~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ W W
i i
a .a
N N
Q~ V~ i
.n
N
O~
~o cD ~o
~, ~~
00 ~~
0
~W W
~ ~ ~

~
~~ ~

c
o
,, b
_~ ~
N ~ ~
'C e
m
~ o~
v ~ ~$
b~
~
f1 O a K1 g

r 9~i m .~ + 8

~
'_
~
° x
n
~

r
m a
a~

~
'o
m m
~~
~~
8
sr
e ~+
~~
pa
~~
z~ y
~~
rp*~l ~ y F y 0
x
~M
'' ~ ~
'ri ,~w~o
~~
~y
Z
m
y
N
2 ~
H
O GZi
`m O
Z
~~
z
O y
C~ ~
Q
-~ ~-
nm
Z =1
Z~~. D
C ^'
Z m
O
o~
00
c
~o
-~
m =
Vl RI
N
aDo
r
N
m
v
v
ICI
~,
I,
~~,
al~
!fii~
~'~1
I'
~~~~
l~ I
,,
/ --
~ / Y
~r / /
r
~, ~I
1
II
II
II
I~
~~ 1
~~~
~~~ //
O//
//
~ boy
:`'
=O~
TIP PROJECT.• B-4269
~~
P
w
v
O
G~
z
__~
C ^ `~
° 0 y
y O
C~ a ~ N
a~~ O
Y~
~ Ir° \ ~ ~ m
~ ~
t~ 3 ~ ; ~
~ ~ J ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
i
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
t~
~ l '` ~
m
~O, ~~ ~
i
Jf - -
~_-~• •-
M3~~ 3~~/
~ C
i ~
a y
~~
o~
O
n
y

(~
I'
~~
~~
00
o `'
~~
8 `'
y
~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~„, ~
o ~ ~~
0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ c,~
o ~~
~ a ~ ®~
~ o ~~
~~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~,
Q ~~
~ ~
~~ ~ C ~~
N
~ o ~ ~®
n C°' ~
r~
VVV o
b
~~

w ~ a ~ y
P p ~
~ O
W

~
~ m

~
~

~
N
~
~
A A

~
,~
~ ~ ~~
~
l:

O ~ N '
N ~ °
° 0 3 d
y O ~
9 s a
A S
°
0
O
O
7~ ° ` O ~ D
~ v ezT ~ ~ N
~ o ~ ~ ° 9
-~
~. ~ ~ o ° h
m Oo O
~,
O p e `C `~ J
3 o n
Q
v n ~+ m ti ~ ~ H ~ v! 61 QJ
9~ a a 3$~ o °- ° «°
S m o 0 0 3 3
~ ~ ~ p ,~ ,~
m o
0
7 O
~y
~~
°
-~
C
eT~
~~
ii
~ I
L~
< O ~ _ ~ v±
7
Q ~ Q
° m
a 7
m 3
m
`
~ _ _ /y~~
a . a- r S ~
'0 2 ~
Q •

Q
R p
p
~ Dm -moo ~ '~v r~ n v ~ -~°
0 o c a a o O
3 o g o~ 0 0 0 0 >>
d ~ d ~ C C. C. a ~ ~
n ~ 3 ~ A ~ ~
3 °~ o c ° ~ ~ ° o ~' o ,~
° g o~~ ~f c~ s o ~`
~ O C ° p ~ n H ~ 'O
c a = } o e ~ ~
o _° o ~ ~ °" °" 3
O - pn ~ ?I C ~
n~ y
S ('y
o ~vJ
~ ~
7 7 7 N 7 a N °N > > A
? m ~ d ~ d °a a ~ N ~ ~ 1° ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 3
? c ~ `` o ~ ~ n p r > > °
° ° S ` -m-« O S` n O ° ° p W j m
m m p Q ~ °' p o n p 0 ~ 7 m
O O Q 7 4. ~ 7 O 3 ~ 7 IC
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o' 3 a
T
C C Q °~' m' A
g a~ s s b
ono ~
,~ o o
~ ~
~ ~
I
I
~ i I I!'
s s o a ~ x~ ~o =o ~ I
I ~ I ~
~~I ~ ~ Illll
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -o ~ -moo ~ ~'
'O 'O 'O 'O ~ 'O ~ n~ 'O 'O rtm_«,
o_ a o_ a m a f7 ~ ~ .p a o. ~ ~
0 o s o g n° 0 2.°. ~~ ?~ ~ m m o 0
0 o m m m °" ~°
O ` c ` ~'
Cvoa o ~ ~ ms 22 ~3~"CW
- o, o ° ~ ~ !- ~ c ~ o 0
o
O ~ _,
3 0 0 o s 's
~ N
2T 3 ° °
O o 4
rt ~
I I I I I I
© E~ ~ ~ ~ I~ In ( I ~ m
I I
~ ~m° v~ ov ~° o o A o a ~e, ^~rm
~. p ~. p N. ~ ~ O A O O N
-o
o °' o a' o a" o 0 0 0 0 o m 0
cS ~ ~ A O q 4
41 ~ j q O O 0 p ~
T ~ -i ~ 'i m ~ m ~ S S °
~ m m m ~ m ° ° ~ ° Q O
~ m ~ 0' A O O '°
m O 'fl C ~ U O ' O_ O
3 O O O ° O
~ o n ° n ~-
c n ~ n Q.
o. ~ ~ 0 0
~ _« o ~
0
w N
m m I m
-F
I I -'r
I V
~ I I I
I
I

I
I
I I I I
I
~~I~
I
I
`~~~~~~~
~.s ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~:~
° 3. 3 0 0 0 0 0~ o~ ~
['
°- -v ~ ° o ° ~ g ~ o
o fl ~ p~ ~ o ~ ° o
~ O °' Z o C MC 0 ~
~ ° o ~ ~ o y °
~ o = ~ y O_ O
4 ~' ° O O A
°
~ °- O
r; O
0 0
in °
m
~
70 ~
70 ~~
~. 70 ~
°
v,
w ~ ~ vi
S m ~
O
3 °
~ c n.
~ ~
ma ~
~ m c°

a ~
I,
R
~ Fi a
Ni. ~ O v ~ ~ ~ QI FAA
° ° o °o ~ m z ~. ~.
o. o ~ n °- P m ~ .0~.
o N o o m c a _ ~ y
S g O O ~ ~^^
A ~ O iK ~ ~ ~ m ~J
7 A ~• D - ~ N
O_ ' S = = X
° ~ °o f7 C
d C ^
m
g ° ~
o
o ° ~
a
°D m
o.
v
I
I I I ~--~
I ®m®o~-~-o-•- o ~ ~ g o
o
I I I m ~
O C ~ O ~ ~ O O O ~ H O ° i 2 y O ~ m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ' u m
A ° °. ~ y d ~. C N T d N O O ~ O ~ (~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ 111777iii d v
o s in ~ o ~ O ~- rn ~ o H o [l ~ -~ ~-
c v O p ~ x c~ a°~ o u o' o ~ ~` u o 0
-. 7 r ~ N n A
`~ !-: u ~ C n ° to
4 O m ~ o C
T
s N O
~ C fA
m m YC
.I, I
I I ~ I ' I I I I I
I ~ o f i
7o I I ` I I I I
~ I
~ °
~ ~ ~ ~ o
•
~ o
a
;
~
O ~ = p
O ~

~ `~
"
a - T

o m
~ 7
s
c ~ 0
. ~

m ~
~ r
A ~

N
C
T
•

o I
I
I
I

I

i

~

®

p

O
n
0
z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
N
3
0
r
t/1
I~
O• O
~e
N
~'
~'
~~
©®
~~
~~
f~

IIEVISwNs
uc-zoos 13sz
~odwa~\Pro,~\44269_rdy_psh.dgn

S N

t v
~
i .S+
~
$ c ~- s -i
.
A D
l
5 t ~
~ ~
+
~~
n

T ~
° m^
g
°i
+ a n

g
~e _
g
r ,-, d
r
~ o s
ti
m
P ~~ ~
u"'i ~ m D
o'
vl ~~ ~ ~~
A m
V p~~ ~ _O
A ~ ~
8r~r'
ooo° _
~1tiUN
wy ~~
\f

a~
bd
mti
w r`, a
~~~
~ ~' x
~~m
~~ti
Ln
~~~
1
ccO~ ~
'~lyr
O I
~~~
~,I
eon ~,
"' ~ ~
~~ ~
2 ~
~~
n
~~
n'l'I ~
l 0
y
~~
0
m
~\`
.~
$~
~ c~ N
~~O
~~
~I ~ III ,
bl I I kl°
I'1
I I I
I 112 ~
I
~
I
I I h
I I I~
=.
~ ~
I
I
II II I
I
Illm
I I
t I I I I
I I ~IIo
III.
S I I
I I I
I I ~I~,
I~~I ~
I I ~
~~ I
I I ~a~~ I I
~
I
I ~
I I/
" II
I
I
I I
/ 11
>`~ 1
~I II
~ 5
/ / I 1 Q
// I I I
I~
// III II
/
/ Q
II
I I
II ~ I
`^ I I
b III) l4
ti
i
I~1 \ II
~/ 1 II
I
~ ~
\~ fQQ I
/
.
O ,
//
/ /
~~~
2
~
L~ \ ~ /~
I I
>.? ~ ~
~ I I
_
~ 1 mn ~
/ 9Z~
~ ~ ~
l I
Iti
_i/
~ I
I

_ I~ I
~
-B1Y.- _ _ ~S ~ V 1 ~
~ / f~'m
/ 1H~
t~ // ~~ ~~
i ~
~ I~n^m /~'I Ly~,08'B6
µ y. j~~~QQ 3.BO,ZL.655
~1 ,.lc
/~ ~.- mm ~ -?ea I
~vs + ~tp
~Yn m~ ~"~a'"~ rA I.
,~ 4 ~ 'moyg g~x I.
`G 8' ~ e ~ °o ~°, I ,
mmm9 w
° ~I
m '°o` s
µ men
~c n
1 m ~ .d
ka NI
I\\ ~ I
\ µ ` I
I I I
11
~ II~
I6 ~
I~
~- \ I
._ ,.~ I
+so~~ ~ i ; I I
z
~~
-~ ~
&g w
~~
u C
~-

IE
1 ~ ~
µ 'I ~ ~ ~
~\ I
I; • !~
~; W j~
II ~ w W
I ~~
I, N ~; W ~
r 00 (I
II A 1 ~ ~-1Z "0 it
IU rm ~~~ }
R~ i G
i 5~ ~ b ~ n~ ~ !I
I ~ ~w ~ is
file ~S r~ %/ ~~
I ~ ~ W ~7 / I
L ~ t (~ /
I \~t ~_2 vY ~J 1
1 O ~~
,~~ i ~~
I ~ i ~~j;O
I ~ ~ m~~
~ ro ~^P ~
II ~ $'' ~ k 1Ni ~ pp+p~p 1
1 ~ ~~~ ~ I rm n Wdln
\~~ 1 {S O rs~N
~i= ~ ~n p0 /0/
~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ti ~ W ~ i
I rte/
I ~ I
I ~ o
t I o
O I
O
~-~
/ ~
3'9f•iC.S
3~LL,OY.o95/ 069
~ '
m µ
0~ /
0
°a µ
/~ y/
~~
mr~i
S
It ~{n
~_
I ~ ~
~_
I~ 2000 (`(nn ~
I ~I b
~I 8
~: V~- P
I

2
$ O
~g
Rrn
~~
~ S ~I I F" 'I•~ ~ wa ~
a ~ ~, .~ II;Ij , ,~ ~
¢~~~ 1 ~ I, II II 1 ~ o
~a$' t ;III ~ I II~ o ~
~ : ~ I II II I I ;a 1
~illl li i~ rz
I I; ~I 1. 1
~ II II II II I
II ~ Q i
I / I II ~~ ~
1 ~ ~I ~~i
1' ~ I~ II at ~ µ e + y
r O
1 III ~ I ~~/ ~ ~
la I ~ III' Im ~. ~ ~ ~
N ~ I' ,I I ~ ,, ,
,/ I~~ I
~ I I' ~ ~!
~ III(
1 ~ I ~~~
I / No~~ //
I / m ~ r ~
I 1 ~~ I ~~Ln///'
w ~v
k ~~ / .m=v: ~ D
f
0 ~ § arNl~: ~ µ }ONO
/h~ d M N :D
/ / N ~ WO
F 1 /
~ 1 / / / //
/ / / / /mom
,' ~ ~ i
1 i
1 / ~ i
1 /
I 1
1 ~ ~ ~ I
h
,~ ~~
P : ~ ~ ~ ~
~ -° ~
f
o
I 2
1 ~
4 ~ m
4' o z

3 a
~O
"~ n
10
0
~ ~ x
_~ ~

V
~~
s
Z'; R~
~O '.p
G ~
s
~~~~~
M ~ ~ 4{~
t.l~
~~~oD~
II ~ ~ M Ml~
bb"~a~2~°
Z ~~~
R~~~Wa
~~~m~
H
II II I~ B ~
4
~~~~~
~~~ww
~a

I

REPLACE BRIDGE N0.90 ON SR 1214
OVER LITTLE COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4269
STATE CONTRACT NO. A304256
STATE WORK ORDER NO. 8.2281601
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1214(4)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4269
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
March 2003

TlP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S~.ti~n page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... ~
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. . 1
1.3 INVESTIGATOR QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ . 3
1.4 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... . 4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................ . 5
2.2 SOILS ................................................................................................................................. . 5
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... . 7
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ........................................................................................... . 7
2.3.2 Stream Characteristics ................................................................................................ . 8
2.3.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................. . 8
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ............................................................................................ . 8
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges ................................................................. 10
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ................................................... 10
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) ................................... 12
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp ................................................................................................ 12
3.1.3 Early Successional Cutover ....................................................................................... 12
3.1.4 Agriculture .................................................................................:............................... 14
3.1.5 Maintained/Disturbed Community ............................................................................ 14
3.2 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA ........................................................................................................ 14
3.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 15
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................................................... 1$
3.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................................................................... 15
3.4.2 Aquatic Impacts ......................................................................................................... 16
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .......................................................................................... 17
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....................................................... 18
NCDOT Page i 03/10/2003

' TlP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
4.1.2 Permits .......................................................................................................................19
4.1.3 Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.3.1 Avoidance ..............................................................................................................20
4.1.3.2 Minimization ......................................................................................................... 20
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation ...................................................................................... 21
4.1.4 Bridge Demolition ..................................................................................................... 21
4.2 PROTECTED SPECIES ......................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Federally Threatened and/or Endangered Species ..................................................... 22
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............................................... 26
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................28
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. B-4269 VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................2
FIGURE 2. B-4269 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE .................................................................6
FIGURE 3. B-4269 NATURAL COMMUNITIES MAP ........................................................................13
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. B-4269 PROJECT AREA SOIL AND CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... S
TABLE 2. B-4269 NATURAL COMMUNITIES IMPACTS ...................................................................16
TABLE 3. B-4269 STREAM IMPACTS .............................................................................................17
TABLE 4. FEDERALLY THREATENED AND/OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................22
TABLE S. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR SAMPSON COUNTY ...............................................26
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Wetland Data Forms ........................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Wetland Rating Worksheets ................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Stream Rating Worksheets ...................................................................................C-1
NCDOT Page ii 03/10/2003

s
TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report
is to inventory, describe, and predict impacts that will occur to the natural resources within the
proposed NRTR study area. An assessment of the nature and severity of probable impacts to
these natural resources are provided along with recommendations for avoidance and
minimization measures.
This report identifies areas of environmental concern that may affect the selection of a preferred
alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be
addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations maybe necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 90 on SR 1214 in Sampson County,
North Carolina. The project crosses Little Coharie Creek approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
northeast of McDaniels (Figure 1). The existing bridge is composed of a reinforced concrete
deck on a timber joist superstructure on full timber substructure. The project length is
approximately 2,550 ft (777 m). There have been no alternatives considered for the bridge
replacement at this time.
The utilization of an offsite detour is recommended to minimize stream and wetland impacts if
practicable. Should an offsite detour be infeasible, it is recommended that an onsite detour be
utilized on the south side of the existing bridge during construction due to existing utilities to the
north. Additionally, the NCDOT geotechnical unit may be required to investigate to determine
whether the existing wetland soils may be compacted resulting in additional permanent wetland
impacts.
1.2 Methodology
Preliminary research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Data sources used in the
project area pre-field investigations include:
NCDOT Page 1 03//0/2003

`"
axe .: ,% ;7- ~ ~~~ 16 18
1_.
.
',~, '' ~- i 1 '-~ ~, ' j r .MI --- -.y

42 ~ •-~. ,' 1~1. 32~ i,, o ;~; Icon ~
l]~2

irf: ,
1
..~ "
-
~
~
~, ,
ua

~ '•
• i..
l
/ 1 t.
~` /. ~
X12 9 .
,..

~, ~ .
•
•~
Jas s;* i., ~ K,w~,.. 335 •-, ~.'" J~
.

I ~ I i ~ - ~-~~ 72~•~...• 22
J2lQ ~ >3L4 Z ~ ~.
~•
~! .~:
- ~-~
' 31
~ 3 ~
• ~~^
"'° f Jas ~
~

1 r
•'
I
• •,.6 ~
I
~ ~ 1 1~
\ ~• l~ f

'
~ s
~ i ;
90 ~ :~ J~
°
~ ~

..
_.
25 a ~
~
~,
19 ~ .m.~ ~
-- r
93 ~ % _ '•

..r ~ 1MN ~ - . testa ~ ~ ~ ` '~_ . ~ Boa 1.

.z ,~, M~

_ ' w.... •
i ~' ~•••.
~ •
>~ ~ . .. ~ ~- ~
369 ~ ~ A D

,~ ~ s
.,
2f
-,..,.. •' 100
n... - v..+~ ti
S A M P S ~,O ~N
.. _....
~ ~Rn' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~,~`
Q ~ TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
,~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
,,~ ENVIRONIVTENTALRNALYSIS BRANCH
SAMPSON COUN'T'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.90 ON SR 1214
OVER LITTLE COHARIE CREEK
B-4269
Figure 1

' ~ TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map
(Bonnetsville, NC 1986).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for 7.5-
minute Bonnetsville, N.C. quadrangle (1994).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Preliminary Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil survey of Sampson County, North Carolina (1985).
• N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area (1:2,400
scale).
The water resource information used for this report was obtained from publications of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 1993, 1999a, and 2000).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was obtained from the USFWS list of protected and candidate species (January 29, 2003), the
Nor±h Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats,
and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Proposed Critical Habitats
for aquatic species.
All water resources within the project area were identified, categorized, and their physical
characteristics documented. Additionally, ali major biotic communities were identified,
documented, and mapped in the field along with their associated wildlife.
All wetlands subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
were identified and delineated according to methods prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the USACE's March 6, 1992
Clasiffcation and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Additionally, the values of all wetlands
delineated were assessed using the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina (NCDENR 1995). The wetland types were classified based on the USFWS's
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979)
and A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (NCDEHNR 1996). All jurisdictional surface
water determinations were made using the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Internal Guidance Manual N. C. Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method
(NCDENR 1999b).
1.3 Investigator Qualifications
Hayes, Seay, Mattem, and Mattern Inc. (HSMM) environmental scientists Eric Black and
Wendee Smith conducted natural resource field investigations within the project area on January
NCDOT Page 3 03/l 0/2003

TlP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
13 and 14, 2003. The qualifications of the environmental scientists who conducted the field
investigations are provided below.
Investigator: Timothy E. Black
Education: B.S. Biology, E. Tennessee State University (ETSU)
M.S. Environmental Health, Water Resources Management, ETSU
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., Nov. 2001 to present.
Natural Systems Specialist, NCDOT, Mar. 1999 to Nov. 2001.
Environmental Technician, NCDENR-DWQ, Oct. 1997 to Mar. 1999.
Expertise: Section 401 and 404 permits, biotic community inventories and mapping, Section
7 field investigations, wetland delineation, wetland function and value
assessments, GPS surveys.
Investigator: Wendee B. Smith
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment
Minor: Environmental Science
Certification: Certified in Wetland Identification and Delineation (NCSU 2001)
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., Jan. 2002 to present
Environmental Scientist II, LandMark Design Group, Sept. 1999 to Jan. 2002
Natural Systems Specialist, NCDOT, May 1999 to Sept.1999
Forestry Technician, NC Forest Service, Jun. 1998 to Aug. 1998
Expertise: Wetland determinations and delineations; threatened and endangered species
surveys in North Carolina; community assessment; GPS/GIS
1.4 Definitions
The definitions used for area descriptions in this report are as follows:
Project Study Area -denotes the area included within the designated study boundaries.
Project Vicinity - denotes an area extending O.S mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project
area.
Project Region - denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.S-
minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The physical resources located within the project area such as soils and water resources directly
influence management decisions during project construction and the composition and distribution
of natural communities present. Descriptions of the project area physical resources are included
NCDOT Page 4 03/10/2003

T!P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
in the following sections.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Sampson County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province of North Carolina. The county
encompasses 963 miz (2,494 km2) and consists of nearly level to gently rolling topography.
Elevations within the project vicinity range from approximately 70 to 100 ft (21 to 31 m) above
mean sea level (msl), with the streambed near the bridge lying at approximately 515 ft (157 m)
above msl (Figure 2).
The Cape Fear River is the state's largest river basin. The river basin in located entirely within
the state's boundaries and flows southeast from the north central piedmont region near
Greensboro to the Atlantic Ocean near Wilmington (NCDENR 1999a). The river's watershed is
approximately 9,322 mil (24,144 km2) with land use practices in the watershed being comprised
of approximately 56% forests, 24% agriculture, and 9° ~ ~..rban areas (NCDENR 2000). Land
uses within the project vicinity are comprised of agriculture, forests, and rural residential azeas.
2.2 Soils
There are four major soil types located within the project area. The official soil series
descriptions were obtained from the Soil Survey of Sampson County (1985). The project area
soil, its drainage chazacteristics, and hydric classificatior. are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. B-4269 Project Area Soil and Characteristics.
Map Unit
Symhol Specific Map Unit Percent
Slope Drainage Class Hydric
Class
BH Bibb & Johnston loam - Poorly drained and very
poorly drained Hydric
BoB Blanton sand 0 to 6 Moderately well drained Non-hydric
JT Johnston loam - Very poorly drained Hydric
Px Paxville fine sandy loam - Poorly drained Hydric
• Rihh and _T~hnstnn lc,am: Bibb and Johnston loamy are formed along major streams in
loamy fluvial sediments. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid with a low shrink-
swell potential. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface for several months
during the year. The soil is subject to frequent flooding.
• Rlantnn Sand: Blanton sand is formed on broad, smooth sand ridges on uplands. Soil
permeability is rapid in the surface layer and moderate in the subsoil. The seasonal high
NCDOT Page 5 03/10/2003

~ '' ~ _. ~ fem. ~~ ~, ~`J ~~ ~ ` ~\_. S, ~ .: ~\ `` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^~ _
~~ ~,~ iQ0`-`..._l ~ f~ii .. ~ `• ~~ ~ ~\~' ~' '~ ' , ~ ~~ l ~ ~ ~~ 1 760 ~ \ti ~ `` ^~
r!'`I i ~ 1', ~ , 4 ~ as ~ _~.<~ t~J ,
i.~ 1 •////I//({ ' 1 /
7 ~ r ~ . x ~. ' ~"
1 _
` ' / ~ t
i ~ " f~
411 ~ ~ ~~ '``~ \ ..' \_ ~ \~ . - - / j~_ ~ ~ .i "`..?
a '1 ~~ ~~s ~'~ ~f ~ '- ~~ 7 1~ ~i y..~- ~- T. ~~ -
~v~ 1 1 ~ :. ~ f ~. ~v!'` -„ ' ~ ~`.3wj~'l~"~ fir~'zt a 'S~ ~,ti y ,... 'r ~~ F ~
,y ~~~ ~ ~ _ , r ~ ~
t ~ ti~ ,?tar { .t f 'tq ~ '~.0(T1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r h ii,''a 1
t- y e _ ~ - q ,, -'~. ~ is n a , .'
try _ ` a.e'~ ~ ~ ~° _ r--~_ a Y ~~~,r', ..~ a 'f r
~, .wcY4- _ r r.
~ \ ~ ~i ~ =r 7 n , ( .,, s, a ~ s .w
7 / r
`~ ~ ~. _ ~' of
b ~ .- ..
- \ ~ --' ~^''r r A ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~'
1. , ~ J ~ 5f ~~ ~ } M ~ j~ t
•.
_ ~J ~ , ~'~ r -' y ~ ~ - , - ~ , ~
- - f i ~ -. ' ~ ttt r ./ rl P l ~t : .~ ~.
_.
,.
,.,
.fib ~, i ` ~ .' ~~~
. ~_
` t26 - ~' } ~"~
r.,
1 r
_ t
,,
.~ , ~
,, ,
f
Name: BONNETSVILLE Location: 034° 53' 19.7" N 078° 26' 35.0" W
Date: 10/4/2001 Caption: 6-4269
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet .

•
T/P 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
water table is below a depth of 5.0 to 6.0 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m).
7nhnstnn loam: Johnston loam is formed on moderately broad floodplains.
Permeability's are moderately rapid in the upper portions of the soil profile and rapid in
the lower parts. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. This soil is
subject to frequent flooding for long periods.
Paxville fine sandy loam: Paxville fine sandy loams are formed on smooth flats and
slight depressions on stream terraces. Permeability is moderate with a low shrink-swell
potential. The seasonal water table is at or near the surface for much of the year. This
soil is occasionally subject to flooding during periods of high rainfall.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. The relevant water resource information encompasses the physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water s;~stems, Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) Best Usage Standards, and the "quality" of the water resources. Additionally, the
probable impacts to surface water resources and impact minimization are discussed.
Little Coharie Creek is one of two perennial streams that comprise the water resources within the
project study area (Figure 2). The other perennial stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Little
Coharie Creek, is located in the southwestern portion of the project area. The streams are located
within the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin in the designated Subbasin 03-06-19 according to the
NCDWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, and USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030006
according to the federal system for cataloging drainage basins. These streams are not included
on North Carolina's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
All North Carolina streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the
NCDWQ. The best usage classification reflects the water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. Unnamed tributaries in North Carolina receive the same classification as their
named downstream tributaries.
Little Coharie Creek is designated as DWQ Stream Index # 18-68-1-17 and is assigned a primary
water resource classification of "C Sw". Class "C" refers to waters that are protected for uses
such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival,
agriculture and other uses suitable for Class "C". Secondary recreation includes wading, boating,
and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed
NCDOT Page 7 03//0/2003

~-
T/P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
development or types of discharges in Class "C" waters.
The supplemental classification "Sw" refers to swamp waters and is intended to recognize those
waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low dissolved
oxygen.
There are no surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km)
of Bridge No. 90 over Little Coharie Creek. The HQW classification is intended to protect
waters with quality higher than state water quality standards. This classification includes those
streams that have previously been classified as WS-I, WS-II, SA (shellfishing), ORW, or for
waters which the NCDWQ has received petitions to reclassify as either WS-I or WS-II.
2.3.2 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Little Coharie Creek on SR 1214. Geomorphic characteristics of
the stream include a width of approximately 75 ft (23 m) at the bridge and observed water depths
ranging from 3 to 7 ft (1 to 2 m). The channel substrate of Little Coharie Creek is mostly
comprised of silt and sand. The stream banks upstream and downstream of the bridge are
vegetated.
The UT to Little Coharie Creek is approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) wide with observed water depths
ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 in (5.1 to 20.3 cm). The channel substrate is comprised of sand and
gravel. The stream banks are partially vegetated with successional vegetation.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area and the potential for
water pollution from both point and nonpoint sources. The water quality assessments presented
are based on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. This
data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the project area and their ability
to meet human needs and provide suitable habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The NCDWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for North
Carolina's 17 river basins. NCDWQ accomplishes this objective by collecting biological,
chemical, and physical data that can be used for basinwide assessment and planning. The
Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the NCDWQ, includes an ambient water quality
monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. This program monitors
NCDOT Page 8 03/10/2003

* ~ TIP 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for chemical parameters and selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms sensitive to water quality conditions.
Biological monitoring of macroinvertebrates is useful because of its ability to assess long-term
water quality shifts, as opposed to chemical monitoring that can only assess short-term presence
of pollutants. Different macroinvertebrate taxa have different tolerances to pollution and many
benthic macroinvertebrates have life cycle stages that can last from six to twelve months.
Consequently, the adverse effects of short-term pollution are not overcome until the next
generation thus long-term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population
shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms. A stream's water quality is
therefore reflected by the overall species present, population diversity, and biomass.
Current NCDWQ macroinvertebrate protocols use the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemerop±era, Plecoptera, Tricoptera, or "EPT") present and a North Carolina biotic index
value for all samples collected. The biotic index and EPT taxa richness values primarily reflect
the effects of chemical pollution. These two rankings are given equal weight in final site water
quality classification. The effects of physical pollutants such as sediment are not assessed.
Benthic samples have been taken near the bridge crossing of SR 1214 over Little Coharie
Creek. Ratings were "Good to Fair" in 1993 and 1998.
The condition of a watershed's fishery is one of the most meaningful indicators of ecological
integrity to the public. Fish occupy the upper levels of the aquatic food web and are both directly
and indirectly affected by chemical and physical changes in the environment. Water quality
conditions that significantly affect lower levels of the food web will affect the abundance, species
composition, and condition of the fish population (NCDENR 1996). To assess a stream's
biological integrity, NCDWQ uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as a
method for examining the structure and health of the fish community. The NCIBI accomplishes
this by summarizing the effects of all classes of factors influencing fish communities. Specific
information incorporated into the index includes: species richness and composition, trophic
composition, fish abundance, and fish condition (NCDENR 1996).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the cumulative assessment
of 12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by these metrics are converted into scores on a
1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions expected for undisturbed streams in the specific
river basin or ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that conditions vary greatly from those
expected in an undisturbed stream of the region. The scores are summed to attain the overall
NCIBI score. A NCIBI score is then assigned an integrity class, which ranges from "No Fish" to
NCDOT Page 9 03/10/2003

T/P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
"Excellent". The index has previously been modified and is continually being redefined for its
applicability to wadeable streams in North Carolina. No fish surveys have been conducted
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of Bridge No. 90 over Little Coharie Creek.
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program implements the
CWA's prohibition on unauthorized discharges by requiring a permit for every discharge of
pollutants from a point source to "waters of the United States". A point source discharge is
defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or any other well-
defined point" (NCDEHNR 1993). This term commonly refers to those discharges associated
with wastewater treatment plants, and discharges from industrial and large urban stormwater
collection systems. As required by law, all point source discharges are regulated through the
NPDES program within North Carolina. There are no registered NPDES discharges located
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of Bridge No. 90 over Kittle Coharie Creek.
A nonpoint discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or other
precipitation (NCDEHNR 1993). Agricultural activities such as land clearing and plowing may
serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Such activities disturb soils to
the degree where they are susceptible to erosion, resulting in widespread stream sedimentation.
Other nonpoint source pollutants such as pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land applied animal
waste can also be transported to receiving streams through runoff. The resulting contamination
may elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients in the receiving stream.
Additionally, the introduction of animal wastes can be a source of bacterial contamination and
elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). There are no observed nonpoint sources in the
project study area excluding runoff from the existing road.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts
Project construction can result in both physical and chemical impacts to surface waters.
Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream banks,
removal of riparian canopy, in-stream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water
resources are likely to result from the previously mentioned construction activities:
Increases in downstream sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
Changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water
NCDOT
Page ] 0
03/l 0/2003

r
TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
and groundwater during construction.
Increases in nutrient loading during construction through runoff from temporarily
exposed land surfaces.
• Increases in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum products)
from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Changes in water temperature regimes due to removal of vegetation within or
overhanging the watercourse.
• Increases in concentrations of pollutants typically associated with roadway runoff.
• Stream channel losses due to pipe installation or channel fill.
While actual stream footage may be lost due to channel manipulation, precautions should be
taken to minimize project azea water quality impacts. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced during construction (NCDOT 1997).
The means to miuiiiii~e i.:.Ya:,ts will include (1) using construction methods that will-limit
in-stream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed as needed, and (3)
revegetating stream banks within 30 days following the completion of grading (tall fescue is
not an acceptable groundcover for erosion control). Additionally, provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly
enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biotic resources located in the project azea include both aquatic and terrestrial communities.
This section describes those communities encountered and the relationships between the
communities' flora and fauna. The composition and distribution of the biotic communities
located throughout the project area aze reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the observed terrestrial systems aze presented in the
context of dominant plant community classifications and where possible follow those presented
by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Additionally, the fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are included for each
described plant and animal species. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968)
while the animal taxonomy follows Burt and Grossenheider (1976), Conant (1986), Martof et al.
(1980), Peterson (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). All subsequent references to a previously
described organism include only the common name. The fauna observed during the site visit are
denoted with an asterisk (*). Spoor evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. The
NCDOT Page 11 03/l 0/2003

TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
published range distributions and habitat analysis are also used in estimating fauna expected to
be present within the project. area.
3.1 Terrestrial Resources
There are five terrestrial communities located within the project area (Figure 3). Community
boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a significant transition zone
between them. The observed communities consist of the (1) Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood (Blackwater Subtype), (2) Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), (3) Early
Successional Cutover, (4) agriculture, and (5) maintained/disturbed community.
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood (Blackwater Subtype) is typically located on relatively
high parts of the floodplain away from the channel (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Canopy
species observed in the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest include loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and willow oak (Quercus
phellos). Observed shrub/sapling species include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweet
pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), red maple, silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea borbonia), river birch, sweet-gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), sweet leaf (Symplocos tinctoria), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Observed herbaceous and woody vine
species include giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
grape (Vitis sp.) (Community No. 1 of Figure 3).
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp
The Cypress-Gum Swamp is located along Little Coharie Creek. This community is dominated
by bald cypress and gums (Nyssa sp.). The shrub/sapling layer contained few species consisting
of sweet-gum, red maple, and sweet pepper bush. The herb layer contained such species as giant
cane, sedges (Caret sp.), and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) (Community No. 2 of
Figure 3).
3.1.3 Early Successional Cutover
The early successional Cutover is located south of Little Coharie Creek. This community
contains vegetation that is in the early stages of succession; therefore, it is lacking a canopy.
Shrub/sapling species include sweet-gum, red maple, loblolly pine, sweet pepper bush, water
oak, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Observed woody vine and
herbaceous species include grape, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), broom sedge (Andropogon
NCDOT Page ] 2 03/l 0/2003

~1,•
a
. ,N~
r~ !<
w~`,
_ +~,~
~' ~

~q,e~,~. fer , errs -~' •, , 4 • ~M'~' 4+~ ~.;:~ ~ 1.,-~ .. ., -
t ~ j
1

w .~
.~
~ -
'fit.
~~ F. _
.w'
4~
'K r1 ~ i
~,~c'`~~s'~,
,~,.~_
i T y
i, w ~.'~.f J 4. ri rt ~.a
,; ;
yy~
( ry. , ti ~, ,~, L ,f r ,t...
~ ,7,~! ,~ ~ `"` ~ a
i wt ~~ Sa ~ r %
.~ , - ~ t,. ~ _ y.
Y, ~ ~ ~ , t
-gR~+~ ~ ~ ~,~? +~-• ~'i~y,~ L .,, ~ '~ j ~" 'fir ~
~,..
~.
Y7 vn ~~
~'•
'''
!•
,r
yy- • ~. ~ ~ ~vyy~~~w
~'rt j, ~ li Fy
..
4
s ~, , •'~
~ w ti'~ t
~ ~h r~..t y . t '.
~ ~.' `.
.r
e" i get . ~ ` . , a ~Yv~Y a .e' ~ ,,~.
~r
~~a 11~ ~1~, .~yyr ?~t~ +t~ 'v~' ~t~x ,•4 . R {.~ . t ~
l~y$; ~
7 ~ ~,~ ,fH a, - S y r
~-
~. _
,•~- ,
Ord ~ .w-. ! ~L x~, ..' ,~ r'1. wYj„ ~1: 'L , ' T'
t ~{ !.,' ~ . II~~r,.
;; .rr ~ 3y
t ;
• . _ Jv
', ^ '~ i.
t -
jr .. ~- A~ •~.
\~} •
F S , Y
{ y.r, ~ dry ~~Y

.!~'
~l.. ~ 1 y '
{ y ~
4 .~1 ~'

S"w 1
,w.

T1P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
virginicus), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), aster (Aster sp.), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), and giant cane (Community No. 3 of Figure 3).
3.1.4 Agriculture
The agriculture community is located in the southern portion of the project study area. At the
time of the field investigation, no commodity crops were planted. The dominant vegetation
observed consisted of grasses (Poaceae) (Community No. 4 of Figure 3).
3.1.5 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes those areas found along the agricultural areas and
road shoulders. These areas include shrubs, saplings, and other plant species typically found in
areas of early succession. Observed herbaceous and woody vine species include fescue (Festuca
sp.), soft rush, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum), wild
onion (,411ium canadense), beggar ticks (Bidens sp.), as±er, broom sedge, dog fennel (E»~patorium
capillifolium), blackberry, crab grass (Digitaria sp.), greenbrier, and yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and grape. (Community
No. 5 of Figure 3).
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
Many fauna species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of biotic
communities located within the project area. Each species present fills its own ecological niche
and there are often complex interactions between all species present. Examples of these
relationships include symbiotic, competitive, and predator/prey relationships. The fauna species
presented in the following sections include taxonomic groups from the Kingdom Animalia.
The forest and forest edge habitats located in the project area provide opportunities for foraging
and shelter for avian species. Birds that might use these habitats include the American crow*
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis
cardinalis), ruby-crowned kinglet* (Regulus calendula), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), Carolina wren* (Thryomanes ludovicianus), hermit thrush* (Catharus guttatus),
eastern phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis).
A variety of reptile and amphibian species may use terrestrial communities located in the project
area. These animals include the cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole* (Anolis carolinensis), and
mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus).
NCDOT Page ]4 03//0/2003

r ro
TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.3 Aquatic Resources
The aquatic community consists of Little Coharie Creek below the mean high water line.
Dominant instream habitats include sticks, leaf packs, and root mats. Other aquatic habitat
present includes pools. The pool habitats present in the project area are infrequent with a variety
of sizes. Riffle habitats are absent within the project study area. The riparian buffer is a
contiguous, well-vegetated comdor within the project study area, excluding areas immediately
adjacent to the existing bridge.
The vegetation associated with the aquatic community includes those species located along the
stream banks of Little Coharie Creek. Canopy species observed along the banks of Little Coharie
Creek include bald cypress and river birch. The observed shrub/sapling species include silky
dogwood and sweet-gum. Herbaceous and woody vine species include soft rush and greenbrier.
Aquatic or water-dependent vertebrates observed or expected within the project azea include the
green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia erythrogaster), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), crappie (Promoxis sp.), and black-
banded sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon). Aquatic or water-dependent invertebrates observed
or expected within the project area include crayfish (Cambaridae) and aquatic snail (Physa sp.).
A NCWRC sunfish moratorium applies to this portion of Little Coharie Creek from April
1 to June 30. There are no NCWRC "proposed critical habitats for aquatic species"
located within the project area.
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction related activities in or near the previously described resources have the potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies both temporary and
permanent impacts to the natural resources and ecosystems in terms of azea. These impacts are
addressed, where possible, from the perspective of resource functions and values. The
practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts are also evaluated and recommended.
3.4.1 Terrestriallmpacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project study area often serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these
species, thereby diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the
NCDOT Page 15 03//0/2003

T/P 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
project area concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to
become more susceptible to disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while
attracting other wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals
displaced by construction activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species.
However, the increased animal density can result in an increase in competition for the remaining
resources. Table 2 summarizes the quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting from
project construction.
Table 2. B-4269 Natural Communities Impacts.
Com1Ti~liut'y u-npacts ac (ha)
Terrestrial Wetland
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
Cypress-Gum Swamp
Early Successional Cutover
Agriculture
Maintained/Disturbed Community
TOTAL IlVIPACTS
3.4.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of Bridge No. 90 over Little Coharie Creek will result in certain unavoidable
impacts to the stream's aquatic community. Probable impacts resulting from changes in water
quantity and quality will include the physical disturbance of the benthic and water column
habitats. Significant disturbance of stream segments can also have an adverse effect on aquatic
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats.
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to
NCDOT Page 16 03/!0/2003

TIP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
increased nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can lead to algal blooms and ensuing
depletion of dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can lead to clogging of feeding structures
offilter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
• Loss offish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
• Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT 1997). Means by
which impacts will be minimized include (1) using construction methods that will limit in-
stream activities as much as practicable, (2) using silt curtains during bridge construction,
(3) : cstoriug stream beds a, needeu, anu (4) revegetating stream banks within 30 da;~s
following the completion of grading. The estimated stream impacts are included in Table 3.
Table 3. B-4269 Stream Impacts.
Stream Name Linear Impacts
ft (m) Area Impacts
ac (ha)
Little Coharie Creek
UT to Little Coharie Creek
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an assessment of possible impacts to (1) "waters of the United
States" and (2) rare and protected species. "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected
species are of particular significance when assessing impacts because of federal and state
mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address those measures that will
be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) promulgated the definition of "waters of the
United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). "Waters of the United States" include most interstate
and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. A wetland is an area that is inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions (33 CFR §328.3(b)). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and other similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
NCDOT Page 17 03/10/2003

TIP 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
"waters of the United States" falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the
statutory provisions under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
All potential wetland systems were investigated using the guidelines specified in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The Corps guidelines use athree-parameter
approach where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics
must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
There are five wetland systems located within the project study area. These wetlands include a
bottomland hardwood/ cypress- gum wetland system (bisected by the existing road), a headwater
wetland, and three seep wetlands (NCDHENR 1996). A description of the wetland vegetation, soil,
and hydrology are provided in the following paragraphs.
Bnttnmland H rdw~nd/C',ynresc-(-Tnm ('.mm~lex; Vegetation observed within the wetland includes
bald cypress, gum, river birch, laurel oak, and red maple. The soils within the wetland area have a
texture of sandy clay loam from 0 to 10 in (0 to 25 cm), with a matrix color of 7.SYR 2.5/1, and
few distinct mottles of 7.SYR 5/4. Hydrology primary indicators include saturation within the
soil's upper 12 in (31 cm), water marks on trees, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns within
the wetlands. The NWI classification for the bottomland hardwood wetland is palustrine, forested,
broad-leaved deciduous, and temporarily flooded (PFOIA).
Using NCDENR's Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the wetland
within the project azea has been estimated to have the following rating for values assessed: 8 of 20
for water storage, 4 of 20 for bank shoreline stabilization, 15 of 25 for pollutant removal, 10 of 10
for wildlife habitat, 16 of 20 for aquatic life value, and 1 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total
rating of 54.
Headwater Wetland: Vegetation observed within the wetland includes bulrush (Scirpus sp.), soft
rush, and Ludwigia species. The soils within the wetland area have a texture of sandy loam from 0
to 10 in (0 to 25 cm), with a matrix color of 7.SYR 2.5/1, with no mottles. Hydrology primary
indicators include saturation within the soil's upper 12 in (31 cm) and drainage patterns. The NWI
classification for the headwater wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, and
seasonally flooded (PSS 1 C).
Using NCDENR's Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the wetland
within the project area has been estimated to have the following rating for values assessed: 4 of 20
NCDOT Page 1 S 03/l 0/2003

T1P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for water storage, 4 of 20 for bank/shoreline stabilization, 10 of 25 for pollutant removal, 2 of 10
for wildlife habitat, 8 of 20 for aquatic life value, and 1 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total
rating of 29.
Steep 1 r~, and ~: Vegetation within the wetlands consists of soft rush, Ludwigia spp., and bulrush.
The soil's organic horizon 0 to 2 in (0 to 5 cm) has a loam textures with slightly decomposed
organic material and a matrix color of lOYR 2/1. The soil horizon from 2 to 6 in (5 to 13 cm) has a
sandy loam texture with a matrix color of SYR 2.5/2. From 6 to 10 in (13 to 25 cm) the soil's
texture is loamy sand with a matrix color of lOYR 5/2, with common, prominent mottles of lOYR
4/6. Hydrology indicators include inundation and saturation within the soil's upper 12 in (31 cm)
and drainage patterns. The NWI classification for the seep wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub,
broadleaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PSS 1 C).
Using NCDENR's C-uidance for Rating the Values of ~'~tlands in North Carolina, tl~.e wetland
within the project area has been estimated to have the following rating for values assessed: 4 of 20
for water storage, 0 of 20 for bank/shoreline stabilization, 5 of 25 for pollutant removal, 2 of 10 for
wildlife habitat, 0 of 20 for aquatic life value, and 1 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating
of 12.
All project area streams and their characteristics are discussed in Section 2.3.
4.1.2 Permits
The factors that determine Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) applicability include
hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource, whether the impacts occur as part of the
widening of an existing facility, or as the result of construction on a new location. Although an
individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts from a single
and complete project may require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
The proposed project consists of replacing Bridge No. 90 over Little Coharie Creek. Under the
guidelines of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulation 23 CFR 771.117(d), bridge
rehabilitation, reconstruction, replacement, or construction of grade separation to replace existing
at-grade railroad crossings may be considered Categorical Exclusions (CE). This classification is
designated with FHWA approval provided an applicant submits documentation that demonstrates
that the specific condition or criteria for this CE are satisfied and that significant environmental
effects will not result.
As an approved CE or as a public linear transportation crossing in non-tidal waters, impacting less
NCDOT Page 19 03//0/2003

TIP 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of "waters of the United States", the proposed bridge construction could be
authorized under the provisions of a USACE Nationwide or General Pernut. Applicable permits
include the Nationwide Permit 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions), Nationwide Permit 14
(Linear Transportation Projects), or General Permit Number 198200031 (for NCDOT bridge
crossings). Other required 404 permits may include a Nationwide Permit 33. This permit is
required for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or
temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation.
In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401
Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ. Section 404 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny a water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to "waters of the United States". Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land disturbance. A
DWQ Section 401 Water Q~,:,~li±<y General Certificatior. for an approved CE (General Certification
3361) or minor road crossing (General Certification 3375) is required prior to the issuance of a
Section 404 Individual Permit. Other required 401 certifications may include a General
Certification 3366 for temporary construction access and dewatering.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands". The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the
United States", specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts
over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). These three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance measures examine all the appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to "waters of the United States". According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, best
available technology (BAT'S), and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization measures include the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
the adverse impacts to "waters of the United States". The implementation of these steps will be
NCDOT Page 20 03/10/2003

T/P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical minimization mechanisms include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct
discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed
areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of in-stream activity; and
litter/debris control.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
The use of compensatory mitigation is not considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the
United States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that the "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every
permit a~tinn. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is therefore required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of `waters of the
United States". Such actions, where possible, should be undertaken in areas adjacent or
contiguous to the impact site.
Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual
Permits or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 ac (0.04
ha) of wetlands and/or 150 ft (46 m) of streams. Under the nationwide permit program, the
District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1 ac (0.04 ha).
Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.1 ac (0.04 ha), for which authorization under a Nationwide
Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of a compensatory mitigation plan as part of the
notification.
On-site mitigation should be considered as the first mitigation option whenever unavoidable
impacts to wetlands occur. On-site mitigation opportunities may include the removal of the
existing approach in wetland areas as well as lengthening the proposed bridge.
4.1.4 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 90 is a 150 ft (45.7 m) long by 25 ft (7.6 m) wide structure composed of a concrete
surface on a full timber deck and substructure. Bridge demolition will occur by removing the
concrete surface prior to removal of the bridge structure. The remainder of the timber
components will be removed without dropping them into Little Coharie Creek. Consequently,
there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. Because of the stream's silt and
NCDOT Page 21 03/l 0/2003

TIP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
sand substrate, it is recommended that turbidity curtains be used during bridge demolition.
4.2 Protected Species
Some populations of flora and fauna have been, or are in the process of decline dtYe to natural
forces and/or their inability to coexist with human activities. The Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species listed as a federally
protected threatened or endangered species is subject to review by the USFWS. Other species
(such asstate-listed threatened or endangered species) may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Threatened and/or Endangered Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the
USFWS lists three federally protected species for Sampson County (Table 4). A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for this species is provided in the
following section.
Table 4. Federally Threatened and/or Endangered Species.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological
Conclusion
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator TS/A o Survey Required

Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Endangered of likely to adversel
ffect
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Endangered nresolved
- ~iA - i nreatenea aue to surutanty of appearance --a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with
other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Name: Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator)
Family: Alligatoridae
Federal Status: Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
Listed: June 4, 1987
Characteristics:
The alligator is a large aquatic reptile, measuring 5.9 to 19 fi (1.8 to 5.8 m) in length, with a
broadly rounded snout, heavy body, laterally compressed tail, and a dark gray or blackish color.
NCDOT Page 22 03/10/2003

T!P 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Young are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands; the banding may occasionally persist on
adults, although very faintly. Unlike the American crocodile, the fourth tooth on the lower jaw
of the alligator fits in a notch in the upper jaw and is not exposed when the jaws are closed.
Distribution and Habitat:
The alligator can be found on the east coast of the United States from Tyrrell County, North
Carolina to Corpus Christi, Texas, and north in the Mississippi River drainage basin to Arkansas
and southeastern Oklahoma. Home ranges may vary considerably, with 3,162 acres for males
and 21 acres for females being average. Individuals can travel great distances, both overland and
in the water, but males tend to travel more than females.
The alligator is found rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes. Adult
animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are apparently more sensitive, with
salin;t;Ps greater than 5 parts per thousand considered harmful. The diet consists of anything of
suitable size, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Nesting takes place in late spring and early summer, with the female building a mound of grass
and other vegetation that may be two feet high and six feet across. The nest is usually
constructed near the water, in a shaded location. The clutch of 30-60 (average 35) eggs is laid in
a cavity near the top of the mound, and is incubated by the heat from the decaying vegetation.
The female usually remains near the nest until the eggs hatch. Hatching takes place in about nine
weeks, at which time the young begin calling to alert the female to excavate the nest.
Threats to Species:
The primary threats to the alligator in the past have been loss of habitat and overhunting. The
legal protections in recent years have allowed this species to increase significantly, and it is now
considered biologically secure.
Distinctive Characteristics:
The alligator is distinguished from the American crocodile by its broad, rounded snout and the
way its fourth tooth of its lower jaw fits into a notch in the upper jaw when the jaws are closed,
and is therefore not exposed when the jaws are closed.
Biological Conclusion:
No Survey Required
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to control the
illegal trade of other protected crocodilians such as the American crocodile, federal regulations
NCDOT Page 23 03/10/2003

T1P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
(such as hide tagging) are maintained on the commercial trade of alligators. No survey is
required for this species.
Name: Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
Family: Picidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Characteristics:
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white except
for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white
with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked
flanks. The RCW has a large ~=~hite cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat. -
Distribution and Habitat:
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a
thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that aze >_ 60 yeazs old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.0 ac (200.0 ha). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with
the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12 to 100 ft (3.6 to
30.3 m) above the ground and average 30 to 50 ft (9.1 to 15.7 m) high. They can be identified by a
large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May,
and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12 days later.
Biological Conclusion: Not likely to adversely affect
Site investigations revealed that habitat in the form of open, old growth stands of pines were not
present in the project study area. Additionally, a January 2003 review of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
known populations within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Consequently, the
proposed project is "Not likely to adversely affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
NCDOT Page 24 03//0/2003

T/P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Name: Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
Family: Laurel (Lauraceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: July 31, 1986
Best Search Time: February-September
Characteristics:
Pondberry is a deciduous shrub growing to approximately 2 meters tall, and spreading by means
of stolons. The leaves are thin, drooping, prominently veined, and pubescent beneath, ovate to
elliptical, and have rounded bases. Leaves emit asassafras-like odor when crushed. This species
is dioecious (male and female flowers are on separate plants), and the flowers of both sexes are
pale yellow, small, and appear before the leaves emerge in the spring. The fruit is a bright red
drupe containing one seed, which forms in the late summer or fall and is supported on a stout
pedicel that remains on the brar_ch after the fruit falls. Vegetative reproduction (stolons) seems
to be more common than sexual reproduction (seeds).
Distribution and Habitat:
Pondberry is known from several widely scattered locations across the Southeast, in Arkansas,
Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and South Cazolina. In interior areas, habitat for
pondbeny consists of seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond mazgins, and swampy
depressions (Steyermazk 1949). in the coastal plain of the Cazolinas, pondbeny is found along
the mazgins of sinks, ponds, and pineland depressions. Soils in these azeas are sandy with a high
peat content, and have a high water table. Fire may have been an important factor in maintaining
suitable habitat in the past. This species is most often found in shade, but maybe seen in full sun
in areas of full sun where competition is not as intense.
Threats to Species:
The greatest threat to this species is loss of habitat through ditching wetlands for residential,
commercial, or agricultural development. Other activities that can adversely affect this species
are disturbance by livestock and timber harvesting.
Distinctive Characteristics:
Pondberry can be distinguished from southern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) by having drooping
foliage, rounded leaf bases rather than tapered, sassafras-like odor of the crushed leaves rather
than spicy, and fruit pedicels that persist throughout the winter. Pondberry can be distinguished
from bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) because the latter's leaves have little or no fragrance
when crushed.
NCDOT Page 25 03/10/2003

T/P B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Site investigations revealed potential habitat for pondberry in the form of wetland areas with
sandy soils. Additionally, a January 2003 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no known populations within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
However, surveys of the project study area are recommended and should be conducted during
the flowering season in March. Consequently, the biological conclusion for pondberry is
"Unresolved".
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The USFWS list thirteen federal
species of concern in Sampson County (Table 5). Federal species of concern are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions
included in Section 7 »ntil they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The
status of these species is subject to change so their status should be periodically monitored prior
to project construction if individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area.
Organisms that are listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) by the
NCNHP list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the North
Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 19?9.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Sampson County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat Present
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC No
Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard SC No
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus)
rafinesquii Rafinesque's big eared bat SC Yes
Heterdon simus Southern hognose snake SR No
Dolania americana American sand burrowing
mayfly SR No
Juglans cinerea Butternut WSA No
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint T Yes
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SR-T Yes
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod SR-L No
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap SR-L, SC No
NCDOT Page 26 03/10/2003

T1P B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Kalmia cuneata White wicky SR-L No
Cylindrocolea andersonii A liverwort W2 Yes
"C" A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The
species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different
part of the country or the world.
"T" Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:202.12). (Regulations are the same as for
Endangered species.)
"L" The range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic). These
are species, which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide.
The preponderance of their distribution is in North Carolina and their fate depends largely on conservation
here. Also included are some species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-
100 populations rangewide and declining.
"SC" Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B
106:202.12). (Special Concern species that are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected
from the wild and sold under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species
which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations.)
"SR" A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, duect exploitation or disease.
The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W2" Includes species w/ questionable taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity, and taxa under study and
potentially to be named. If further study reveals that these are valid taxa, they would warrant addition to the
Rare Plant List as Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Significantly Rare.
"WSA" Rare because of severe decline.
NCDOT Page 27 03/10/2003

TlP B-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso JL. 2002. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Burt WH, Grossenheider RP, editors. 1976. Afield guide to the mammals: North America
North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 255 pp.
Conant R, editor. 1986. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians (Eastern and Central North
America). 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 429 pp
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
LeGrand Jr. HE, Hall SP. 2001. "Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of
North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Martof BS, W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Hamson III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press. 264 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins. Division of
Environmental Management. Raleigh, North Carolina.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 1995.
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth version.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 1999a.
Basinwide Assessment Report. Cape Fear River Basin.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource, Division of Water Quality. 1999b.
Internal Guidance Manual - I.C. Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000.
Basinwide Planning Program. Cape Fear River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
NCDOT Page 28 03//0/2003

TIP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management. 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands Report No. 96-01. EPA 9048-
94/001.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Element Occurrence Search Report: Sampson County,
North Carolina. httn~//www.ncsnarks_net/nhn/search.html, Updated February 2002.
Peterson RT, editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America.
4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.
Radford AE, Ahles HE, Bell CR. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Schafale MP, Weakley AS. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. August 1985. Soil
Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. Bonnetsville, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute
series). Reston: 1 sheet.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Bonnetsville, North Carolina, National Wetlands Inventory
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). 1 sheet.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
NCDOT Page 29 03/10/2003

T/P 8-4269 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Cazolina Ecological Services.
2002. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Sampson County. Updated 31
March 2002. ht~tn~//nc-es fws.gnv/es/rnnnt~~- html
Webster WD, Parnell JF, Biggs WC. 1985. Mammals of the Cazolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
NCDOT
Page 30
03/10/2003

TIP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
Wetland Data Forms
NCDOT Page A-1 03/10/2003

OArA FORH
' ' ROJiINE ti/ETLANO DETERMINATION '
- (1987 CCE uetlsnds Oc(ineation Manual)
Project/Sift: ~`~a~y Date: ~ lS 03
Applicant/o.+ncr: AICI~T- County: ~S4n1A.SGr1
Imrestigaeor_ ~iG R1~-. IN.rn4CC ~r-u~ State: NC
Do Normal Ciret.nsstanees exist on the sitel Yes No Cocaanity [0: -I/~~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Trsnseet ID:
Is the Brea a potmtiat Problem Area? Tes No Plot ID:
([f needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETAi10N
Dominant Plant Species Stratu~a Indica'to/r Dominant Plant Species Straeu~e Indicator
4_ - 12. -
5. 13.
b_ 14.
7_ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Speeies that are 08L, FACV and/or FAC_
(excluding fAC-): 3/3 =~~~V
Remarks: y~Gfu- D/1 mef- vV~-H~cn ~%~t~-/~ -. .
xroaolocT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Uetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Irxndated
_
Other ~ Saturated in Upper 1Z Inches
_
_ tlo Recorded Data Available _~ Uater Marks
Drift liras
Sediment Deposits
Field Observatioru: ~/ Drainage Patterns in 4etlands
_ ~ Secondary Indicators (Z or more required):
Depth of Surface lJater: (in.) OxidizeC Root Cliamels in Upper 12 Irxlus
• eater-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Vater in Pit: --' (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
/ FAC-Neutral Test Z:0
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~_ (in.) Other <Ezplain in Remarks)
Rcm~rks: ~~~~~,/ rn(?~ L.r/v/ ! ~i/'C(~C_ ~/7~1~/G--

' OATH FORH
ROUTINE VET~AHO DETERHfNAT10N '
- (1987 CCE vctlsrds Delineation Manual)
i Project/Site: (~~~~//r//~/1~ 7 oate: /Il ~/U,~
Applicant/OwnerJ/:~-'/VC/JJ(,Jl // (~ ~f County:_iSG/YI,QJUl7
investigator: /~j'1(~ ~(CCG~C. ~ w~,~'~O L/ L)j~11 // State: ~/C
Do Normal Ciralrstanees exist on the site? Yes No Cocm~.mity IO:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Tes o Trartseet 1D:
Is the area a potmtia[ Problem Area? Tes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Oominanc Plant Species Stratus indicator
ra F~fc'
3.
4_
S_
6.
7_
8.
Dominant Plant Species Stratus [rdicator I
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. /
1G. i
15. i ~
16. ~ •
Percent of Dominant Species that are OHI, FACL! and/or FAO: Q
(excluding fAC-): ~ 00 = O
Remarks: ~ •
Hl'DROIOGT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Irxridated
_ Other _ Saturated in Upper 1Z inches
_ Ro Recorded Oata Available _ Vater Harks
_ Drift lints
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterru in Vetlands
_ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Ocpth of Surface eater: (in.) _ Oxidized RooT Charnels in Upper 1Z Inches
• _ ltater-Stainec' Leaves
Depth Co Free water in Pit: ___._ (in.) Local Soil Survey Oata
_ ~ FAC-Heutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ~~e~ t- ~~P~ tiy~,~%Yy cri~~%~- %v b~ a ~~f~

oArA Foar
ROUTINE VET~ANO OETERNINATION
(19E7 ODE ue[lsrds Delineation Manwl)
Project/Site: ~~Tu~~~11~nno I Oate• (( X13
Applicant/Ouner•_~~{/vT Ccanty:_ J~nl(~$C~17
Investigator: ~/C R~~GlC U/,oh CG ..Si~'!r/~ Stale: /VC
Do Normal Ciretnss[an~es exist on the site? Yes No Coam~ni[y IO:~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)1 es No TransecT !0:
Is the area a potrntial Problem Area? es No Plot ID• - G C
(If needed, explain on reverse) -~"!
VEGETATION
Dominant Pl~an/t/ Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ~~ILIl~,l1 ~ ~L1 ~J 17 F~f 9.
F,t{lA/t
3. Lu ~/i4ia F/kw -~ '
__._~ b $L . ,, .
4• 12_ -
5- 13_
b. 14_ -
7. 15.
8. 16_
Percent of Demirwnt Species that are OBL, FACV and/or FAC_
(excluding fAC-): `3~3 = I~%
Reasa~ks: ,Veyef~t~i'oh met uX~~~/Id ~'j->rc~~--
RTOROIOGT
r--
Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Oata Available
Field Observaciolu:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth [o Free [later in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks: ~~~ `~ /,~,~ ,M~~
(in.)
G (in.)
~_ (in_)
4ettand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Intr+dated
~/ Saturated in Upper 1Z Inches
_ eater Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
_/ Drainage Patterns in Vetlards
Secondary Indicators (Z or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Charrxls in Upper 12 Inches
_ water-StaineC Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
/ FAC-Neutral Tes[3:0
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
L'r ~G/'iCc,

OAiA FORH
RO;li1NE vETLAUO OETERHINATION
(1987 tCE vetlends Delineation Manw l)
Project/Site: L~""To~(y"/ Oace: ~ l5 U3
Applicent/Ouner• N[-IJD~/l /, C~ty_ ,~/T
Invescigstor- fir/C ~~,K ~, ~~~/1 P~ C~/!7/f /7 State: !y~
Do normal Circumstances exist on the site? Tes No Comrnnity 10:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Tes No Trsnseet ID:~__
!s the area a poterttia[ Problem Area? Tes No Plot 10: '(,~
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
') /Dominant Plant Species Strattla indicator Dominant Plant Species ~ Stratus Indicator
z_,~y~1 sy. ~ S to. .
3.e~U-~"I LLIJ ~7~lJLl f '! ~i4Cb1/f' t t .
4- 12.
S. 13_
6. 1G.
7. 1S.
8_ t
Percent of Dominant Species that arc OHL, FACV and/or FAC.
fexclvding FAC-): ~2' ~~°fo
Remarks: ~/~~o}~jvlr. /r'1Gf" !.<rG~ ci'ife~-i c~ -
N7DROlOGT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Vetland Hydrology lrxlicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ uo Recorded Data Available _ eater Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Vetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Vater: '~ (in.) Oxidized Root U arrxls in Upper 12 Inches
_ Vater-Staines leaves
Depth to free eater in PiL: (in.) Local Soit Survey Data
,~. fAC-Neutral Test/:
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

Rerr~rks

OA TA FORH
ROJTINE VETLANO DETERHiNAiION
(1987 CCE veclands Delineation Marxial)
Protect/Site: ~"' -~°~~~ ~ ~5 b3
e ~ Tom, Oatr
Applicant/Onr~er' /~( ~/ County- ff
Investigator: ~)~!L ~(C~ ^~~~ ~Yli-t'Vl State: N~
Do Normal Ciretrs:stences exist on the site? Tc ilo~ Com:.nity !D: C~_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es ~~ Lrstneet !D:
Is the Brea a potential Problem Area? Tes Ho Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
N Dominant Plant Stxeies Stratus Indieetor Dominant Plan[ Species ~ Stratum [rdicator
1. ~~(~ t°{~itSl1S ~ CWf 9_
II.. ~i/CKi7`
2_ c~GirP(.!S SA• ~ n ~ Gam. 10_ ~ .
3. 11.
4. 12.
S . 13.
6. iG. -
7. 15. .
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 081, FACSI and/or FAC: Z/ ~~~
(excluding FAC-): a ' l
Remarks: /1/Q~j[`fR,~Z17i'J /Jll~ ~!/~~ C/'~iL/w ~ ~ -
N70ROlOGT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
Ho Recorded Data Available
field Observations:
Depth of Surface eater:
Ocpth to Free Vater in Pic:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.)
(in.)
~~ (in.)
Rert~rks. ~~//~~V~~/ ~Cy f~l/~vrl,1G+7 C~~l
lletland Nydrolo9Y Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
I rxrda C ed
_~ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ slater Marks
_ Drif[ lines
_ Sediment Deposits •
_/ Drainage Patterns in tletlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches
_ lJater-StaineC leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Oata
,i fAC-Neutral Test 'j;D
Other (Explain in Rerarks)

r

OAlA FORH
ROUT IRE VETlA1+D DETERHlNAiION
(1987 CCE tletlards Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: K-7~(0 % ~' oete:_T $~03
n~ ~_
AQplican[/Owner- JyLyD"/~~ Ccanty• Cf~cYYIiOIon
Investigator: ~~1L B~GI~C ~it/P~LG~ e ~jy) f~j Sts[e: • ~L
----_
Do Normal Circtsnstances exist on the site? Y No Caana~ity l0: C-/ -(,(P
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ~~ Ko iransect ID: ~-
Is the sres a potrntiat Problem Area? es No Ptot I0:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratus Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
" T. dub i t sw. ~ 9. •
z. cC1~/G~L_. r.d/ /' ~ lo. .
4_.~, u~.~~ h~9rw .~s c ,z.
S- 13_
6. 1G_
i
7- 15_
8_ 16_
Percenc of Dominant Species that are 081, FACV and/or FAC: 2
(excluding FAC-): ~2 = ~Q~`~°
Remarks: -
. " `~
tTDROIOGT
--
Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks): Vetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Irx.ndated
_ Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ uo Recorded Oata Available Vater Harks
_ Drift lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in 4etlands
__ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oep[h of Surface dater: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Ua[er-S[aincc! leav_s
Depth to Free Va[er in Pit: (in_) Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 ~ (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

TIP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX B
Wetland Rating Worksheets
NCDOT Page 8-1 03/11/2003

T~^rrs
;' "~'.C.J..~t ~ '~~'1:~W~:l~. '~ ~~.~.~.e:~~'oE1It~] Y~tac~il. '. /~
}< ,,, r ~.~ ss ) ~v~ <~.~ c .,c.Y " ~! ~`S~WI'L?~'.'' i1:i<i: ..°s1i ~a ~ nvrwY~?~'~. ~.. ,-: ~Y Y / 1
<_./...~''.~..Ss.. ..?fir.! .7!~~~~i~4~S:<f4 a~~;.^~~.. ~ vie:
Project Name ~~ Nearest Road s R ~~~~
County ~ c'~ VL'etland Area aces Wetland Width fe t
Name Of evainarnr W~Jt "'1' f ~r'rlrt7l Date / ~-`~~ G'3
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Soil series ~ In~lf•]SfDV1~ 1/1
- predominantly organic -humus, muck,
or peat
/ predominantly mineral -non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Adjacent land use
(within lf2 mile upstream, up~~lope, or radius)
~/ forCSted/natural vegetanon
~ agriculture, urban/suburaan d~
~ impervious surface S
Dominant vegetation
(1) ~i~~u.l~.t ilia/C{
(2> ~Ju~~c~ I ~t ~c~~-~ ~ii,~.
(3~ ~C~-)` Y"Ubram
Flooding and wetness
IIydrauIic factors
steep topog-aphy
ditched or channelized
/ total wetland width 2100 feet
semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of floodine or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
/Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest - Other
__________ *the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charnels
weight
~ Water storage 'Z x 4.00 = ~<
fl IIanlJShoreline stabilization ' x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal 3 * x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat 'S x 2.00 = ~, ~.~'
N Aquatic life value ~ x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education ~ x 1.00 = C f
Wetland
Rating
~~
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
__ _ _ _ u slo e, or radius
-P--~'---------------------------------------------------------------

_ ~ `~ ~ , a
~> ~ ~4~' ~'T..G` ` . ~ ~ ,W~,QR:.KS~-.I.#.:;t-:.l„ baurttz ~.er-oa:. 1
~ ... ..
~;~ .ti. ,~?~~.s.~t3.'.','S?-:+!r ~i:?~6~4~~°i~Ctlt?'r .. 'nf~~"«!~r`'~WKx'.r..'..?!?,.,w ' .~Si~.":a .:.. ~...~ifwY~X.x7L ~,.• •;--...'' 1
HIV
~i
Project Name R~`L"~L~ I Nearest Road- SR 10?/~
County ~%:~,v, S'U~'- V~'etland Area aces Wetland Width ~ ~O~7 fe t
Name of evaluator ~~~~'~ 5~~~ ~ -Date ~ ~~` °3
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
/ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Soil series ~~f~lri`y~ /1~1~.~ --~.Th~fi~
predominantly organic -humus, muck,
or peat
/ predominantly mineral -non-sandy
predominantly sandy
hydraulic factors
steep topogaphy
ditched or channelized
~ total wetland width z 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, up-lope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation
~/ agriculture, urban/suburban ,~G
'~ impervious surface ~
Dom, infant vegetati~o~n

(3)
Flooding and wetness
semipermanendy to pernanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
/ intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forestCcu-fvYz~) Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest - Other
-- *the ratin~_system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charnels
weight
R Water storage ~ ~ x 4.00 =
fl DanlJShoreline stabilization
x 4.00 =
~
;.. •:<::.>.
a '~~ ~''
T Pollutant removal ~ * x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat 1 x 2.00 = t
N Aquatic life value °~ x 4.00 = >-,~!
G Recreation/Education 1 x ] .00 = C
Wetland
Rating
~~
`Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >IO% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
_ ul~slo~e, or radius____ _____
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

a ,,
*v~~ ~T.G`~ `' ~ ~~~' ~~y! .'v~r;~,1,~Op~RK~fia[5~~.-I.~~~~.r~~i,~,,l~aurct~ Yr~~a .:, (/
.:.: < 1tY. ~2.`.f,Y!>, .th. ?~fF a[7M.%!.'vf.~9. ~ f~. ..'~p1'!`i~S':'~~~'#.1~~.~~~.N~w..r,:~..1+•~a+w~a`4~a ! a~i''rcwjwi+Nn~'a~l~~`:i .~-r.C.~ /n~
Project Name ~ ~d~ ~ Nearest Road S~ /a?/~
County ~ '~ GT1 -Weiland Area ac;es Wetland Width: - ~/OV feet
Name of rvah~arnr Ly~a ~< <Ji}?i~l~ -~ -Date /S'~
---- ,
Wetland T.ocation
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within inte;str am divide
~ other ~~i//,~i~~ ~'/~~,a~'
Soil series t~lC~/~~~~~i~J~--Jvi/il~~v~
-predominantly organic -humus, muck,
or peat
~! predominantly mineral -non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Adjacent land use
(within 112 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
/ forested/natural vegetation
/ agiculture, urban/suburoan ~
/ impervious surface -S
Dominant vegetation
(1) ~~~UJ ~~fu~s u,1'

Flooding and wetness
IiydrauIic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
- total wetland width zI00 feet
semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
- Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
- Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest - / Other ~~'c'T-
*the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charnels
weight
R Water storage ~ ~ x 4.00 = ~<'

f1
DanlJShoreline stabilization
x 4.00 = a >< <
T Pollutant removal ~' x 5.00 = ~ ~
f Wildlife habitat ~ x 2.00 = ~r~ .
1V Aquatic Life value ~ x 4.00 = ~
~r Recreation/Education ~ x I.00 = '.'.:~~<
Wetland
Rating
_. .> ~'~
~~~
".
`Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
_ u~~slo~e, or radius _ _
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIP B-4269
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX C
Stream Rating Worksheets
NCDOT Page C-1 03/11/2003

IYCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: t7 -~ f~9 River Buin: ~ii,,,L `~ County~~~~Jp// Evaluator: ~fjC ~/~~ / `(/Cn~~G sryL, ,~
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream:C'~~ Latitude: 3~/°S,3 iN Sienaturc: `~~/Qij„{l~ i'C~Y/~/~
Date: ~/~y/~Dd.3 USGSQUAD:~j~jjG~v>~~C~~G Loneitudr.7~`ZGr~ Loeatiot/Dircet~i"o~n's':~,SR /d/~ pyC,~`r/{.f"~
* PLEAS NOTE: //evaluator and landowner agree that the jcatan is o man-made ditch, thee use ojrhis jornr is nor necasary•. (,U, /~ I/ e C/Y-e K-
Als°, ijin the best projasiona/ judgment o/the evaluator, rhr jcarun is a nran-rrra4 ditch and na • modified natara(strearn~his
rating system should natbe ased*
Primarv Field Indicators: rrrrlr onr Nuwibrr Per LinrJ
I. Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Strono
1) Is Thttc A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 3
2) is The USDA Teadae In Sttrambed
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2 ~
f•:VOTE: /l Bed & B°nkGrrrrd By Dirchinr Awd W?HOCT Ciun•irv Tbm Crorr•0'1
10) Is A 2'"t Ordtt Or Grcattt Channel (As Indicated /r1
PRl.11ARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
II. HvdroloQV _ Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is Thcrc A Groundwater
Flow,'Discharec Present? 0 I 2 ~;'~
PRI,IIARYHYDROLOGYINDKATOR POINTS:_~
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: /Circle One Nurnbn Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A /~,
Natural Drainaec Way/! 0 .$ 1 / I.$ 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: •5
II. Hvdroloev Absent Weak ytt-derate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leafliner
4) [s Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 :$ 1 L$
t wn ~~ r n d9 v i N ! w
5) Is Thcrc Water In Channel During Dry 0 .$ I I .$
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strcambcd? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mosty FAC Alosrh~ FACU Mostly UPL
/• NOTE: Ij Tora/ Abrrnce Of All PI°nrr In Snombrd 1 1 .~$ .~ Q Q
Ar,Verrd Abort S4ie Ibir Srra UNLESS SAV Praenr-1
SECONDARY B/OLOGY /NDICATOR PO/NTS:~,~
TOTAL POINTS (Primarv +Secondatvl =~(/jGreuru Thart Or Equa! To /9 Points The Stream /s qt Lrast Interminrnt)
5) Is Thcrc An Active (Or Relic)

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
B-4269
8.2281601
33610.1.1
BRZ-1214(4)
The purpose of this project is to replace Sampson County Bridge No. 90 on
SR 1214 over Little Coharie Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge
160 feet long with 30 feet cleaz deck width. The cross section will include two
12-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway will extend 360 feet from the southwest end of the new
bridge and 345 feet from the northeast end of the new bridge. The approaches
will be widened to include a 24-foot pavement width providing two 12-foot travel
lanes. Eight-foot turf shoulders will be provided on each side (11-foot shoulders
where guazdrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local
Route with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 90 includes aneight-span superstructure composed of a reinforced
concrete deck on timber joists. The substructure includes timber caps on timber
piles.
Bridge Maintertance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
17.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
structurally deficient due to a structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to
_ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and is therefore eligible for
FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
Timber sub-structures typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 yeazs of age due to the
natural deterioration rates of wood. Rehabilitation of timber structure is generally
practical only when a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated.
However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become
impractical to maintain and upon eligibility aze programmed for replacement.
Bridge No. 90 is approaching the end of its useful life.

C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. ~ Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.

6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in azeas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land aze
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boazding azeas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial azea or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be requited in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.

D
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
$ 725,000
$ 34,000
$ 759,000
Year 2002 -1430 vpd
TTST - 2%
E.
Yeaz 2025 - 2800 vpd
Dual - 4%
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Most timber and steel structures (as is Bridge No. 90) can be
removed using standazd practices without any resulting fill in the stream.
Offsite Detour: NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge
Replacement Proiects considers multiple project variables beginning with the
additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour.
The offsite detour for this project would include SR 1212, SR 1240, and SR 1217.
The detour for the average road user would result in 12 minutes additional travel
time (7.0 miles additional travel). Up to a twelve-month duration of construction
is expected on this project. The delay falls within a range where consideration of
traffic maintenance onsite begins to be weighed against factors such as
environmental impacts and costs. In this particular case, maintaining traffic
onsite would result in impacts to wetlands. Sampson County Emergency Services
has written that temporary road closure does not create an unworkable situation,
however it may delay response time. Sampson County School Transportation
have indicated that an offsite detour would add around one hour per day for some
of the students riding the bus, but did not indicate that it was unacceptable. The
Division recommends road closure with anoff-site detour. In view of the cost
savings, the lower environmental impacts and no major opposition, an offsite
detour is recommended. SR 1240, a leg of the detour, is subject to flooding and
the bridge is posted at 20 tons for single vehicles and 29 tons for trucks. This
bridge, B-4270 has just been awarded for construction and has a floating
availability date but should be completed prior to letting B-4269. If flooding
occurs, traffic could continue on SR 1216 to NC 24. SR 1217 has a curve that is
posted for 25 MPH.
Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL
(l) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
Unique or important natural resource? '
YES NO
^ X

(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
Listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ^
X*
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
Permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone andJor any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? ^
X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel

changes? ^
X

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ^ X
s

(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ^
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ^
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ^
7~
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ^ X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ^
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic

volumes? ^
X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? ~ X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ^
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?. ~ X*
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history orpre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(fj resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X

(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(fj of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? ~ X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
*Response to Question 3: National Marine Fisheries Service indicated that the river
basin likely supports NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources. The biologists stated
anadromous fish were not present, but adhere to the moratorium. After discussing the
moratorium with Ron Sechler of the National Mazine Fisheries Service, it has been
decided to eliminate the moratorium from the project commitments.
*Response to Question 28: A historic structure is located in the vicinity but is not
affected by the project proposed. If the project plans change from the initial scoping of
this project, a survey will be required.

G. CE Approval
Proiect Description:
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
B-4269
8.2281601
33610.1.1
BRZr1214(4)
The purpose of this project is to replace Sampson County Bridge No. 90 on
SR 1214 over Little Coharie Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge
160 feet long with 30 feet cleaz deck width. The cross section will include two
12-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway will extend 360 feet from the southwest end of the new
bridge and 345 feet from the northeast end of the new bridge. The approaches
will be widened to include a 24-foot pavement width providing two 12-foot travel
lanes. Eight-foot turf shoulders will be provided on each side (11-foot shoulders
where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local
Route with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
~- t ~ -c,
Date
3 ~t,~ OS
Date
rro~~yct riamm~g umt tteau
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
llf ~
Deject Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
~/U~
N/A
Date John F. Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

,. .-. ,~.
_ _
~~
. ~' yPROJECT'CONIlVIITMENTS:
.. :,
s
.: ~ , ~Fa : ,~ ;~ ~ s`"~,,' ~ ,,~ ,~ ~ `~Sampson~County •
~' . ~ ~ ~' ' , ~ x 'y ~ r~: ~ ~ ,$ridge`No 90.on"SR;1214
`~ " r ,~z ,.,~ ~°Y ~ y~~~ "F °~ `Over Zittle ~Coharie Creek - _ _
... air ~.~ y 4 end°;• =~a tin iai7den~ .. _ ~ -.__
' aY ~ ~ ~- -f" ~r ''~ r, Federal ~id'Project'No >BRZ-1214 (4)
:.::. ~ _n,~.w ~~~, ~;~y i j~,~- .r :State Project:No.~8:2281601
'' ~ ,~a W B:S.. No X3610:1'1
°~,
;' ~' .Y~~~Sif --/ i ~-~ u.ft.lkto- `,t~r,~r -' > ; ~GZ.P
No B-4269,
i i
yy ~~ry~~ 4
~y t
}R~~ W t PI1 r . ....,
`~ All Design`Groups%Division Construction Engineer/State Contract OfTcer =Request for
' ~."moratoriam; school buses
..
_ _
,~, r .-.
The Nort~FCarolina Wildlife~Re mmission (NCWRC) requests a sunfish moratorium `
~: ~ for this~portton oTLittle Cohane Creek "from Apn1 L to June 30.: `Currently the let date forthis _ - •
~pro~ect'is'~1~pri1'2007.~}Construction could begin.as°earl}i'as June 1~.Due to_Sampson County
~~ School Transportation having concerns regarding the construction period during the school ~yeaz, •"
construction should take,place `as much gas possible•during the summer months.~Forthese~reasons •~
;:.. .. ..
::
~ ~~and since<statute::orregulations'do-:not require the .moratorium;~ifis not practical to adhere.to the -`
~~~- ~-entire•moratorium The~State Contract Officer should coordinate with Project Development and - •
~- ,~ ~1nvu~onmental Analysis:before writing language in the contract regarding this commitment. ~; ' ~,~ -
F,.
.
~:. ~ " ,
,,, _ ,,.m ~ -..
~:
~. All. Deli Grou /Division Construction Engineer -Temporary fills and undercutting.
~ Ps
:. ~m::
. The United States Ann Co s of Engineers has'indicated thaf-project commitments should
,_._ _
oval of all t m -r_ fills fro _ ,.. _ _ . _
~nclude'the rem
po ary m waters and wetland. If undercutting"is necessary -, "
£or temporary detours,;the undercut material should be stockpiled on an upland site and later used
. _ r ~., ~,
... .:,-_
.. to restore the site. - , ,.: , _ . , .. _ ; ` . ,. ., .:
All Design Groups/Division Construction Engineer Considering accelerated construction
;1r
;Sampson County-Emergency ManagementServices and Sampson County School Transportation
_ . ~. ~have;expressed concerns aboutthe length and time of the`detour:route. 'During the design,
.. - ,.
contract and construction phase,.consideration should betaken in accelerating the project. .
_ - ,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis.-Historic Structure
EThe North. Carolina Department of Cultural -Resources State Historic Preserv ~ ~ ~~
ation Office isaware
"of:a historic structure located in the vicinity but not affecting the proposed project. If the project
` plans change from the°initial scoping of this project,. a urvey will'be required. ~..
r.._
... ti _ . _
,. _
_ . -:
Division Construcfion Engineer !Detour Route , ~ ~ _ , ,
,, ::-. ,
-SR'1240, a leg of the detour, is subjectao flooding and the bridge'is posted of 20/29. ".This bridge, ;
B-4270 has'justbeen awarded and has a floating availability date. "The bridge may not be " -''~
..._
- -. -completed until as late as Apri12006. If flooding occurs, traffic could continue on SR 1216 to - '
' ~~ :'NC~24; SR:12I7 has a curve that.is posted for 25 IVIPH._
- ,_ ., .
., ,,.. ,.. _ ._. _ r
;.
•, Right of Way of Way Branch -Private boat ramp - , ~, , =
..
~.
A.pnvate boat ramp is located in the southwest quadrant near the bridge. During Right of Way, ~ ;;
the boat ramp and the driveway will be addressed. -"
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion ,. - Page 1 of 1
r, ,, -,
_.' °.FGreen Sheet r{,,,~_ _.. ~ ~ .... . ,. . ~ _ . :. .,, {` a
March 2005

f

- i

~ t _ ,.s

~ ~ ~~~ Nar.~..: '-''..•. -..y 335 - •-, i r~+r .ltd
25 ~ . .~-'~-'~~. ~~' ~. .. ...r ; ii ~ /~ is
~' 93 i '
_ ;
~oruv ~ i f /• ~: ~~
~ ~ ! '
• ~ AY
~r~
Lam;.`'- ~ , ~ '.rte ~ ` ~•` ~ r~~'y~e'Y. ~ / ~.
/' ~-
,; 369 i t. ,•~` ~' s~ • B ` A D
-..~.. 100
.'
~ ~~/ .L"` rwly m
w~.o~. •
S A M P S O N
• • '~.i
~wi~
ht k
y ~T~.:-
Proposed Detour Ronte
Cdr Mo~tN ~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Dr/ISION OF HIOHWAYS
~ PROIEC.T DEVSI.OPMENT 1$

a- ENVIItONMHNTAL ANALY3L4 BRANCH
SA1I~SON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 90 oN SR 1214
OVER LTITI.E COHARIE CREEK
B-4269

Figure 1

.Y r
~
~

.
.~
.~,~.~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
PARTICIPATIU
Lisbeth C. Evans, secretary ClT1ZENS
EIVED
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy secretary REC
Office of Archives and History
JAN 2 8 2004
January 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM ~jr~,a~.. ~:~...~.F..~..,~~•' .,,.^ .:..
,r_._. ~.
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Divi ~on of Highways
FROM: David Brook ~~ ~ y
~Oh-nSo~~
'~ w~e~
~~
Division of Historical Resources
~~~~v~~
2-
~ aA~~ '~
~-'~~
~ ; t-.:.~ ~,v~ tic"vs ~~ 4~'
f'•- , ~,tvA 4, ym
. -.,c ~ ~ ^ ~~-
'~^NTAL
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 90 on SR 1214, B-4269, Sampson Counn•, ER03-0970
Thank you for your memorandum of Januan- 7, 2004, concerning the above project.
We checked our files and find that on December 16, 2003, we signed a Properties Not Eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places concurrence form for Bridge No. 90 on SR 1214.
Therefore, we have no further comment on this undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Presentation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Presen~ation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at' 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If ~-ou have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, a;
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
www.hpo.dcr.sta tc.nc.us
Location Mailing Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 2 7699-46 1 7
RF~~T~II; ;TIC) ~ I ; ": Rl~,un; St. R;~Ire~h '~C abl' !Mail Sen icr Center R:+leieh !uC '_?Fi9a..;hl
Telephone/Fax
[phone].733-8653
r41U1?33-ti~J7.~l~--t8~1

r
Federal Aid # RR7,-I21:t(4) TIP# 13-1269 C'vunN• Samncon
C(1NCURREyCE FORiyr FOR PROPE121~11r:S iy0•I~ ELIGIBLE rOR '
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLr1CES
!'rujecl Utscription: Keplacr Bridge \n. 90 un SR 121.1
On Dec. l ti,'2t)Oa representauves of thz
North Carolina L)epanment of "Transportation (NC'llU1~)
® 1'edzral Highwsy Adtninistrat%on (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project st
^ Scoping meeting
® IIistoric architectural resources photograph re~~iew sessiotticonsultation
^ Uther
All parties present agreed
^ Thcrc arc no properties over fifty year.: old within the pr~jcct's arcs of potentisl ei~ccts.
® Thcrc art: no properties lcs, than fifty year; old which arc con:~idcn;d to nzcct Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area ofpotcatial ei~ccls.
,~ There are properties over ffty years old within the project's .area of Potential Fffzcts (.~\PE). but ~z~~~,,o..~~`` the
historical inforrtarlon available and the photographs of zach propery, the pmpertle icier.tified as~'r ~fc~
considered not eligible for the rational Resister and no further evaluation of thzm is neczssary.
^ There are no ?vztiaral Registe,-fisted or study Listed properties within the rr~izct's aria o no:rnti_'. ztfzcts.
~OT>/: Owen IIousc (NR) DF.STRnS'F.D
1•IcDaniels School (Si.) not in Area of Potential Effects fur B-4269
Atl properties 5reater than ~0 years of age located in the ~1PF. have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architceturc with Section 6QFi of the Nanrn;al Historic
Preservation Act tuzd GS 121-12(a) hrs been eotnplcted for this project.
® ~Iterc are no historic properties alTcctrd by this project. (~Itluc'~~ ur,' nutt~~ ur elul;umc•n1.5 ns ~aer~e:r.dl
~iryrecl:
Kepresentative, NCUUI Date
_~ ~~
~~~%L~ ~
FHt~VA, for the Division Administr;aor, or oth 1•ettcral Agency Tate
/G 1 a'~? O
Rep esentanve, KPn ate
~V L~
~~~ _ _ IZ--I~-D~
State Historic Pt~scn•uti~~n Uilicer Datc
'.1 .i .urvc~. r.C~~:l :~ o..^.,iiC.1 ,~ G~i;il •:ca.,; .~ ,i: ~ tCviii :niu r`•c ,i(r,~~: `.irJ Iri( ,..." t. .. Ia,'.. -i

nct;~c~v \
Fd
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. administrator
Michael F. Eseley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Je~'rey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of archives and History
October 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM
1,,, ~~
z -o
o st
o,~ ~~
y~Fyo ~c~r~c~
:e 1,9~vF~OP~F~~ p~
~NALYSlS 6~,
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways ,(
FROM: David Brook r ~t~.` ~~
K~ .
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on SR 1214 over Little Coharie Creek, B-4269,
Sampson County, ER03-0970
On September 4, 2003, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects,
met with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of
the minds concerning the above project. We reported on our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. DOT
provided project azea photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary
comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of a historic structure located near
the azea of potential effect. If the project plans change from the initial scoping of this
project, a survey will be required.
There aze no recorded azchaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any azchaeological resources which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
www. h ~o.d c r.state. nc. us
Location JlailinR ,~d(lrn~ Telephone/Fax
ADh11NISTRATION 507 N. Blount tit.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Servicc Center. Raleigh NC ?7699-1611 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTOR,1'iION 515 N. Filount St., Ralcigh NC 1617 Mail Scrvicc Crnter. Ralcigh NC _7699-1617 X919) 733-h547 • 715-1801
~~ {?\'E1 :~ 1'1..1\'\I`'~; S!.` "~ 131uun! St Rakieh ?1(' Jhl? ~f~il Scnicc Ccmcr. Raleigh tiC ~'h~-if~l' i91~) 7}}_x;45 . ?IS-3801

October 29, 2003
Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc Mary Pope Furt, NCDOT

V ~.
. . ' p`+~.z o r ~~`
o' ~ 'n
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
_ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
'~ J~ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
r
jL~aa c~ ~
abitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina ?S516-97??
July l7, ?003
L o
William T. Goodwin. Jr., PE, Unit Head
Brid~,e Replacement Unit
Project Development and Environmental rlnalvsis Branch
1 >4S ~•(ail Service Center
Ralei~~h, ~iorth Carolina "? ~6yy-l x=13
Dear ~~tr. Goodwin:
The \ational vlarine Fisheries Service (NOr1C1 Fisheries) has reviewed the \atural S~~stems
Technical Reports (NSTR) for ?9 bridge replacement projects identified in your..-~pril 10. ~Ot) ~.
letter. These projects are scheduled for construction in fiscal year ?006. NO~~, Fisheries ita~
identified the following issues and concerns as being relevant to the proposed bridle replacement
project:
- Permanent and temporary wetland losses
- Oftsite versus onsite detours
- Time of vear restrictions on instream wort:
- Treatment of wetland restoration areas
- Existing bridge demolition and removal
- Lengthenin, existing bridges as a wetland restoration measure
- Replacing bridges with culverts
The ~'~IFS recommends that these issues should be fully addressed with re<_ard to project related
lrj";;'1 ~rS and !'ii't1S?atl~'"
Section 1. Yellow Light Projects (YLPs) - YLPs are those with issues for which there is an z~ist
coordination mechanism or process. The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in
areas that do not support NMFS trust fishery resources. Otherwise, they have normal environmental
concerns and, therefore, are identified as YLPs.
Bridge Number Project :'Number Location
Ijrid~e Vo. -t6 B - 4105 Duplin County
Brid``e ~~o. I SS B - 4108 Duplin Cuunty
13nd~_c ,vc~. ?? 13 - 4135 tialita~ C~~unt~
(3ridv_z Nu ~? B - ~416~t Johnston County _~.~~w,
,
,~ t•
- -
i ~1 ,•. ,~~_~_ ~, ~~. _ _ _ ~~•~~~

~, .. ~,
Bridge No. 13 B - 416S Jones County
Bridge No. 16 B - 4185 Martin County
Bridge No. 36 B - 418S Martin County
Bridge No. 65 B - 4233 Pitt County
Bridge No. 25 B - 4237 Pitt County
Bridge No. 04 B - 4307 Warren Cou,lty
Bridge No. 107 B - 4305 Warren Countv
Bridge No. 38 B - 4309 Warren County
Section II. Red Light Projects (RLPs) -Red Light Projects are those that include extraordinary
resources-0r concerns that will require close coordination to complete successfully. These projects
involve high quality wetlands, extremely valuable or rare endangered. species habitats, or other
limited or unusual resources.
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in river basins which are likeiv to support
NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources including the threaten shortnose sturseon and are.
therefore, classified as RLPs.
Roanoke River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number Count<~ Location
Bridge No. 11 B - 4027 Bertie
Bridge No. 18 B - 4313 Washinston
Cape Fear River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number Countv Location
Bridge No. 98 B - 4271 Sampson
Bridge No. 90 B - 4269 Sampson
Bridge No. 63 B - 42?4 Duplin
Bride No. 46 B - 4138 Harnett
Waccamaw and Lumber River Basins
Bridge Number Project Number C o u ,r t v
Location
Bridge No. 20
Bridge No. 94
B - 4079
B - 4251
Columbus
Robeson
Likewise, the bridge replacement projects listed below are located in river basins which are likely
to support anadromous fishery resource and are, therefore, classified as RLPs. However. the
occurrence of the threatened shortnose stun,eon in these river basins is unknown.

w ~ ~ ~ f
Neuse River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number
Bridge No. ? 12 B - 4085
Bridge No. 74 B - 4088
Bridge No. 128 B - 4174
Bridge No. 102 B - 4231
Bridge No. 09`` B - 4232
Bridge No. 121 B - 4236
Bridge No. 21 B - 4319
Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number
Bridge No. 84 B - 4021
Bridge No. 39 B - 4025
Bridge No. 219 B - 4238
Perquimans River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number
Bridge No. ~9 B - 4228
Pasquotank River Basin
Bridge Number Project Number
Count y
Location
Craven
Craven
Lenoir
Pitt
Pitt
Pitt
Wayne
Count y
Location
Beaufort
Beaufort
Pitt
C o u n t y
Location
Perquimans
Count y
Location
Perquimans
Bridge Number Project Number C o u n t y
' Location
Bridge No. l3 B - 4073 Chowan
Spawning and nursery habitat for anadromous fishes may be adversely impacted by RLPs u~~less
measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands are included in the project plans.
Accordingly, the NMFS may recommend against Department of the Army authorization of ti~ese
Bridge No. 62 B - 4226
Chowan River Basin

A ~ ~,. ~ t
.,
projects under Nationwide Permit 23 (Categorical Exclusion) unless the issues identified above are
addressed and following recommendations are incorporated:
1. Following impact avoidance and minimization, unavoidable wetland losses shall be ot~'set
through implementation of a compensatory mitigation plan that has been approved by the Corps
of Engineers and in consultation with the N1~ffS.
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those ~;ystems and their associated flora and fauna.
3. In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project areas as spawninv
or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall be restricted to the period October 1 to
February 15 of any year unless prior approval is Granted by the Corps of EnGineers followins
consultation with the NNg'S.
If these projects are processed under Nationwide 23, thev will be carefully reviewed for
incorporation ofthe recommendations listed above and we may elect to provide additional comments
and recommendations that are intended to avoid. minimize, and offset impacts to IivinG marine
resources. Also, based the limited information contained in the Natural Resource Technical Reports.
it is unlikely that Essential Fish Habitat for Federally managed species occurs at these brid~Te
replacement sites. Our recommendations, if any, vtizll be sent to the Wilmington District. L`. S..-~rmv
Corps of Engineers, and a copy will be forwarded to you.
Finally, the shortnose sturgeon, a Federally protected species under the purview of the \~~1FS is
found in the Cape Fear and Roanoke Rivers. These comments do not satisn Federal a~_encv
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
If any activity "may effect" listed species and habitats under ~ffS purview, consultation should be
initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721 Executive Center Drive ~orrh. St.
Petersburg, Florida 33702. ,
We appreciate the opportunity for early particiF~ation in the review of these bridge replacement
projects. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at the letterhead address or at ?3?-72~-
~090.
Sincerely,
Ronald S Sechler
Fishery Biologist
cc
COE, Wilmington, NC
USFWS, Raleigh, NC
NCDMF, RaleiGh, NC

Action ID Number: SAW-2003-650-082
Permittee: NC Department of Transportation: Division of Highways
Mr. Gregory J. Thorne, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project: TIP No. B-4269
Date Permit Issued: 3/9/2007
Project Manager: Jennifer Frye
County:Sampson
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
POST OFFICE BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date
Page 3 of 4