20020519 Ver 1_Complete File_20020402

d M STN(o4,Q,
,?.0 2 0 519
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 25, 2002
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ui,
Division of Coastal Management >
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
?-
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845 ?
ti;'ETI.'s Mi ?,
ATTN: Mr. Bob Stroud
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: CAMA GENERAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 81 ON SR 1216 OVER CYPRESS CREEK, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.
BRZ-1216(11), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2271301, TIP PROJECT NO. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
referenced structure on existing location, along with associated approach improvements. The
new bridge will be approximately 105.0 ft in length with a 28.0 ft wide travelway. Traffic will
be detoured offsite on existing roads during construction. The scope of work for this project was
documented as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) approved by the Federal Highway Administration
[Federal Aid Project BRSTP-11(3), State Project 8.1270801] on 22 June, 2000. Additional
copies of this document are available upon request.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 81 is located on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek. It is
composed of concrete and timber. The timber structures and asphalt wearing surface will be
removed without dropping any components into waters of the U.S. duringdemolition. Some of
the concrete material may be dropped into waters of the U.S. during demolition. The resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete is approximately 64 cubic yards (48.9 cubic meters).
Should any material falls into the stream it will be removed as soon as possible as part of the
bridge removal process.
Waters of the U.S.: The project will result in 0.008 ac of permanent fill in wetlands and
0.077 ac of mechanized clearing in wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be
involved. Permit drawings depicting this proposed work are attached. No deck drains will be
placed directly over Cypress Creek.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Cypress Creek [DWQ Index No. 18-74-55-2, (4/1/59), Class C Sw] flows south into
Long Creek which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. It is classified as C Sw, indicating
swamp waters, which are characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels,
and high organic content. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, which implements stringent erosion and sedimentation control, will be employed
throughout construction.
No anadromous fish spawning areas occur within 5 miles of the project, however N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission had originally requested an in-stream construction moratorium
between April 1 and September 30 to prevent interference with spawning for pickerel, sunfish,
and catfish. The length of this moratorium would be reduced to April 1 through July 1 if silt
curtains are used during project construction.
The navigational clearance of the bridge will basically remain the same since no
recognized demand for navigation exists. Cypress Creek is not susceptible for use as a means to
transport interstate or foreign commerce and there is no evidence that boats greater than 21.0 ft
long cross under Bridge No. 62. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration has determined
that the project does not require a U. S. Coast Guard Permit in accordance with 23 CFR
650.805(c).
It is anticipated these activities will be authorized by a CAMA General Permit. A permit
application and a check in the amount of $100.00 are enclosed to cover the CAMA processing
fee. The adjacent property owners have been notified of this permit request. Copies of the letters
sent to the property owners and the certified mail receipts are attached. The signed return
receipts from these property owners will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. By copy of
this letter, NCDOT requests a NWP 23 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
appropriate Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. An application to
NCDWQ Stormwater Management Section was applied for in addition to those requested in this
application. However, it was determined that a permit will not be required for this project.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
StAcerely,
"V.L
William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., NCDOT Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., PD & EA

FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT Burgaw

C. Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner: SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.)

Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
City Raleigh State NC river, creek sound, bay) Cypress Creek
Zip 27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
Fax [phone] OF PROPOSED PROJECT

b. Authorized Agent: a. List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
Name and excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace the existing bridge with a new
Address bridge and new approaches

City State

Zip Day Phone b. Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
Fax New Work

C. Project name (if any) B-3361 Bridge No. 81 c. Will the project be for public, private or
over Cypress Creek on SR 1216 commercial use? Public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
Note: ` ermit will be issued in name of landowner(s), methods of construction and daily operations
and/or project name. of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. Purpose: to
replace an existing bridge with a new
bridge and new approaches
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED Methods of construction: standard
PROJECT roadway and bridge construction methods

a. County Pender
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
M. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4. LAND AND WATER n/a
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 1.2 ac
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) n/a waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 34.0 ft above MSL discharges.) Surface runoff
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Lumbee (fsl), Norfolk (Ifs)
Muckalee (1) '
, o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract n/a
red maple, water tupelo, sweet gum, carolina ash
f.. Man-made features now on tract
Existing bridge and roadway
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
9.
h.
j•
k.
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land
use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
How is the tract zoned by local government?
R-A (Rural-Agriculture)
Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable.)
Has a professional archaeological assessment
been done for the tract? Yes X No
If yes, by whom?
Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes
Coastal (marsh) _ Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach documentation, if available)
No
X
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
* A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
* An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-I
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name see sheet 6 of 7 in permit drawings
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application. 1-t
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to
conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the ,A?day of , 20 o -L
Print Name William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Signature 4)_Z. G./^4,A_
Landowner or Au Aorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
_ DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
21 in. concrete cored slab
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Cypress Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 11.5 ft
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 91 ft
(2) Width of existing bridge 28.7 ft
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 5 ft
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing
bridge will be removed and replaced
with a new bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge
h
J
k
m
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above n
the MHW or NWL
105 ft
Width of proposed bridge 30 ft Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
4ft
Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
5ft
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain navigable opening will increase
Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X No
If yes, explain
Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
Yes X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
d.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes _ No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 50 ft
(2) Width of area to be excavated 65 ft
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 98 cy
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
(to be determined by contractor)
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03/95 '
Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for futureb. b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance? Yes X No any existing utility lines? - Yes X No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled and erosion controlled? NCDOT
(3) Purpose of fill Erosion Control Guidelines will be followed
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
result in any fill (other than excavated material dredge)? excavators, backhoes, front-end loaders,
described in Item d. above) to be placed within: dumptrucks, motor grader, etc.
Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
_
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 62.6 ft g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled 6.5 ft to project site? Yes X No
(3) Purpose of fill roadway fill If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
highground? Yes X No require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be filled If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
4. GENERAL Applicant or Project Name
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation? n/ ,
G
Yes X No `l/
If yes, explain in detail Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
« sun>
•?VWM ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Helen Persal
5560 Pineywoods Dr.
Watha, NC 28471
Dear Ms. Persal:
March 25, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Pender County, Replacement of Bridge No. 62 over Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney
Woods Rd.). Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1216(11), State Project No. 8.2271301,
NCDOT TIP No. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No.62 over
Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.) near Atkinson in Pender County. The proposed
action will involve replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge that will be 105.0 ft long and
approximately 28.0 ft wide. This replacement will take place on existing alignment and local
traffic will be detoured offsite using existing roads during construction.
The project will require the permanent fill of 0.008 ac of wetlands and the mechanized
clearing of 0.077 ac of wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be involved.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is required
for this work. This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. In that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy
of the permit application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on
your part.
If you have any questions, please contact your appropriate DCM representative, or call
Mr. Chris Rivenbark, N.C. Department of Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 25, 2002
International Paper Company
3 Pine'Valley Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28412
Dear Sir or Madam:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Pender County, Replacement of Bridge No. 62 over Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney
Woods Rd.). Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1216(11), State Project No. 8.2271301,
NCDOT TIP No. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No.62 over
Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.) near Atkinson in Pender County. The proposed
action will involve replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge that will be 105.0 ft long and
approximately 28.0 ft wide. This replacement will take place on existing alignment and local
traffic will be detoured offsite using existing roads during construction.
The project will require the permanent fill of 0.008 ac of wetlands and the mechanized
clearing of 0.077 ac of wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be involved.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is required
for this work. This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. In that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy
of the permit application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on
your part.
If you have any questions, please contact your appropriate DCM representative, or call
Mr. Chris Rivenba`rk, N.C. Department of Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
&1?
?c+ William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

t
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.2271301 (E-3361)
MAIDS BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1216
SHEET 1 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02
? NORTH CAROLINA
.. -tom

LEGEND
LINE WT LINE WT
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY 4-6 PROPOSED BRIDGE 6
WETLAND
L 4-6 PROPOSED BOX CULVERT 6
DENOTES FILL IN 2
® PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48' 15
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER
® 2 EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES 6
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER 2
(POND) SINGLE TREE 2
® DENOTES TEMPORARY 2
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE 2
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND 2
DRAINAGE INLET
¦
DENOTES TEMPORARY

FILL IN SURFACE
® 2
WATER ROOTWAD 2
•, •, •+» DENOTES MECHANIZED
2
+ • + • CLEARING
2
F- E- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP 2
TB 2-4
TOP OF BANK
WE - EDGE OF WATER 2 O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 2
OR PARCEL NUMBER
- -Cm- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT 2
IF AVAILABLE

- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL 2
2
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
2
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE 2
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE

EASEMENT 2
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BO
D 2
UN
ARY
- - -- - WATER SURFACE
N. C. DEFT. OF TRANSPORTAT ION
X X X LIVE STAKES 2
X X DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C2D BOULDER 6 FENDER COUNTY
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS PROJECT: 8.2271301 (E-3361)
FRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1216
SHEET 2 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02
?I O U
Cl-
m ?I, a a? M w a M
? ? T ?, ?O F m? a w
u of M ^o F
w '"o 6,4
Wo I I U n z A
CG Gs, er O p4
o I O z a4 cn ?.
z o z A H w z
w 0
z U o
c I o w w A "4 0?
x
I I e w 0. O U M
C Q a v`i'i F
fe ?N z II :9
o v a w w
' x w
a
m Z 0.
z CZ) CL ?" cn
w c U
V ..I
N Q
?a z
V K '7 E,
I z
a
„ss ?b O
O
w
S ? 3M ?Y ? Z
S
\ ti 3A Q ( 7
8 ?\ w W U z J D
c' W Q
2: Q Q
\^ W
m ; Ul J W . LLj
?U ~3
• : * S z
CD
?e Z
* * ? r GI mod . LZ W
* av 0
+r
J r
W ! LL \ +? ?F
Na
? g +? I mf + r
U? O \
z 0
wm ? o
m \nu,1 ?
m
z ? ?
• a ?'
m o
Lr)
O N
k
?N vl ? N
V
LL N z ? O
? 0
* N 3 t u =
* d L?
h W I a O ii
a I
a o ) I a w
z • I .? J
< Lfl Q
o N
I n
?` I d, 1 z

w o
V) o ? M° N° F U
O
_j LL) 0
ww I I w
``
o I D a x E" W
r? O ?o
Ln CD
O
O N I IZ I O Z~ M s A
J
w 1\ I a x U ?` ?o z A
LL. V)
?o I I I H O ay z v
z
? i \ I W a0
~
C') o w ?i \ r a ti Q U O
N 51
\ z _ A fry °? (n •P 11 3 a H
01 I o U A W
M J OI
??
J I? QO +MOQ + 1 I I Z
z x
CIO w co L() JU ii 1 ?^ I 00- Z)o
Q NaL) w
M? J M dw>Y I I ?a v> - O
Q _ZlngyO I I Uwrca1 w O
?. O m I W W O In
-w0 U) I
UJ 7- Q 1
W Q 1 r a
(nQOOUO W
(=,,JC'NM(n I ?\
o /
O I =p i
i
1 +
V
w ? -
I
°c, z o m a
Cl-
1z 2
H O ?w
\ I T
M
lfl N ' I Ina 111
W >U
In ' Jd a
1n> OVl
IUE HV `J
J I V) X
W W
V> W
it V)
> I<
0 I
I !
O N I
IN
O?oo w I oo O
w In w d I n O
It 11 +
I z
Z ?W>Y I z I
_j I I
w
I.,_ N In I
na O I I
O O a> -? 0
Oto n00 Lj
Jqz- wW ?a
LL. V)Z 2U I I
In it U a m -
w Qi? om I I
~ °
I I
o
x °o
O w =?
I O
O
N
O O O
M N
O O
co
w o 0
z

Q LJ

O
M
M
a
?
w
x
z
o o
LLI O
x :?)
o
U O W
>
m w

EZ-I
CO
a ?
ad D
t?
J X o z ? z o
J
LL Lu a m0

a

A

w

F
a ? ? ? x
O
-
In
-O
It
-O
C'7

Q -0
I C\l
Q -0 O
LJ I
-0 +
I
T
W

C!) O
N

LLI a -0
C'7
r)
C?

O -0
/'?
cr
n
0 0
411- CY)
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESSES
HELEN FERSAL 5560 PINEYWOODS DRIVE
WATHA, NC 28471
INTERNATIONAL PAPER 3 FINE VALLEY DRIVE
COMPANY WILMINGTON, NC 28412
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-3361)
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1216
SHEET 6 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02

-0

(n

C:
Co Z U)
O ?w
U) ° ?
H>- r)aU v

L LL ?Q coUZw
F-
LU
Z O
a =
m co
w
H Z O - j
p iz p
U
w
F- p cr N (D Q U-
LL Z w ao 0 0
O O z
s
z
au) a Uw

Q Z W
V of Q S
acnY(n
z w
w
af
co U

Cl)

a.
C:
T
-

CL z =?

w
00

u

z

CL 0
N
Cl)
N
M

?

t O
Ol
N

o a?
?F
C
O
LL

o
v
z
in
rn a?
C C U _
U x L .,
n
E

a w
U
a
f

Q a. U)
3 E c --

W
U
Q
w
? C

y U
?
o ca
- d
ii

= U
Q ?
ii

N
C ,O

C O
O

L O U
O m L IU C) O

Q ?

? o ?
c
_
U

? w

W p

0 ji
c
Z w amm

o °
c
0 o
0
m

?n
0
m
a n
lL
_ ? C7
U ? O
o ?
(n <n co

Q

O O
Q)
E (D

? L 0
N
L }
N
? o J
(n z ?
O
o
p a
LLJ Q r
;f
020519
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3361. Ponder Countv
Bridge No. 81, on SR 1216
Over Cypress Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1216(11)
State Project 8.2271301
APR ?
2 2002
WETLANDS Gp%0I 'J
• WATER UALI11'' ScCT?r.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridae Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of concrete and timber
components. The timber components will be removed without dropping any
component into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The asphalt wearing
surface will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping into the water. Some
of the concrete material may enter Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The
temporary fill associated with the concrete is. approximately 64 cubic yards. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document
Green Sheet
June, 2000
Page 1 of 1
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3361, Pander County
Bridge No. 81, on SR 1216
Over Cypress Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1216(11)
State Project 8.2271301
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of concrete and timber
components. The timber components will be removed without dropping any
component into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The asphalt wearing
surface will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping into the water. Some
of the concrete material may enter Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The
temporary fill associated with the concrete is approximately 64 cubic yards. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
June, 2000
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
A
B
Project Description:
B-3361
8.2271301
BRZ-12160 1)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 81 over Cypress Creek, on SR 1216 in
Pender County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with
a new bridge approximately 105 feet in length and 28 feet in total clear
width. The bridge will have a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each
side. The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 22 foot width,
with shoulders of at least 6 feet width on each side. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. During
construction, traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 81 has a sufficiency rating of only 38.0 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for weight limits of 23 tons SV and 26 tons TTST. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 81 requires replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1 . 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)
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
O3 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.
5. 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 areas
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 are
2
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, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area 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 required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $400,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 61,000
Total Project Cost $461,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1,000 VPD
Year 2025 - 1,800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 22 feet wide with at least a 6 foot grassed
shoulder on each side. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where
guardrail is warranted.
3
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 60 mph.
Functional Classification:
SR 1216 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Engineer supports road closure and replacement at the
existing location.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? ? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
ered or threatened species may occur?
listed endan
?
X
g
(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-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures

to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
X ?
(5) Will the project require 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
Resource Waters (ORW) 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? F] X
4
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or 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
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F] X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ? X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
ht of way acquisition considered minor?
amount of ri
X
g
(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? X
(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
5
(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) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F 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 ? X
important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) 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)? F-1 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(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ? X
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3361
State Project No. 8.2271301
Federal Project No. BRZ-12160 1)
Protect Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 81 over Cypress Creek, on SR 1216 in
Pender County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with
a new bridge approximately 105 feet in length and 28 feet in total clear
width. The bridge will have a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each
side. The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 22 foot width,
with shoulders of at least 6 feet width on each side. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. During
construction, traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
6 2-2-00 Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
6-ZZ-GO UJc?7vi ?- &7/,,a-#
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
N
S
I ,

Costin
1216 (J Piney Wood
L
I
1121 11
------------ -
0
1220 2
7
1122
11121
Bridge No. 81
4. 1 -
1,00
8 1335 '
?. 1 15
1 i
Vy? 1
?; 1333
5
i
Wards
Comer
•? 2. 5
140
ti?? 73b u
? C
m'
J--?
N
o -?
1 ? 35 .,
345•
? 339
1 337 Ln
i
1"34
I 9 / a ?
, ,
7 ? RhYne 1216
1351 Cro ssroads
0 8 yr 4 ? C '
1336 ,.._...::;.._..
X40 \ 11!'0
1 t1l
1404
Studied Detour Route
Figure 1
??4 North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Pender Counts
Replace Bridge No. 81 on SR 1-116
Over Cypress Creek
B-,3361

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project oor ator
Habitat Conservation Progr m
DATE: December 16. 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Columbus, Duplin, Halifax, and Pender
counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3144, B-3165, B-3182 and B-3361.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 16, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 Dcccmber 16, 1998
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3144 - The bridge site is surrounded by an expansive swamp. To minimize
wetland impacts, recommend replacing the structure at the current location
with road closure. Specifically, no temporary detour.
2. B-3165 - Limestone Creek provides a good fishery for pickerel, sunfish, and
catfish. To prevent interference with spawning, we request that there be no in-
stream work between April 1 and September 30, the length of this moratorium
could be reduced by the use of silt curtains. The existing bridge is surrounded
by a bottomland hardwood wetland. Therfore, we recommend that the bridge
be replaced at the existing location. We also recommend that the roadway be
closed during construction and that an on-site detour not be used.
3. B-3182 - We have no specific fishery concerns at this site. However, there is
the potential for federally listed mussels in the vicinty of this project.
Therefore, we recommend that Tim Savidge be contacted and the appropriate
surveys be preformed. If mussels are located, we recommend an on-site
meeting to discuss strategies to minimize adverse impacts.
4. B-3361 - Cypress Creek supports pickerel, sunfish, and catfish. To prevent
interference with spawning, we request that there be no in-stream work
between April 1 and September 30, the length of this moratorium could be
reduced by the use of silt curtains. If a temporary detour is necessary, we
recommend locating it downstream of the existing structure to minimize
wetland impacts.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #8 1 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek,
Pender County, B-3361, ER 99-7693
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
r
C

On December 10, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion 'KI 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 77601-7507 ?Z
Nicholas L. Graf
12/28!98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?N. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett
SrNE o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B Hunt Jr., Govemor Division of Archives and Histor}
Beth Rav I'v1cCain. Secretary Jeffre, J. CroA. Dircctor
October 27 1999
f, REC.,
Rvan Smith
Langley and McDonald
44 Greenwich Road
5544-
Virginia Beach, VA 2346?._
t„
RE: Replace of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek, Pender Countyt
ER 00-7730
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on
the project as currently proposed.
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,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:ldb
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
109 East Jones Street - Ralei_h. North Carolina 27601-2807
020519
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 81 ON SR 1216
OVER CYPRESS CREEK _
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3361
State Project No. 8.2271301
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-08
Langley and McDonald Project Number 1960024-208.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitiuation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleich, North Carolina 27611
Attn. Phillip Todd, Environmental Specialist
Issued: December 1999
9 Langley and McDonald
_
'-, , ?Ir?C!S • _^!??I"71?1?')?h(7l -Ol1SLllCc9l71S
5544 Greenwich Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23462 • [phone] • FAX: [phone] • L&[e-mail]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... ............................................III
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... ............................................III
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ .............................................. I
L I Project Description ............................................................................ ..............................................1
1.2 MethodoloR% ..................................................................................... .............................................. I
1.3 Terminolo2,,and Definitions ............................................................ ..............................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................... .............................................3
2.1 Red=ional Characteristics .................................................................... .............................................3
2.2 Soils ................................................................................................... .............................................3
23 Water Resources ................................................................................ .............................................4
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ............................................................ .............................................4
2.3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................. .............................................4
2A Summarv of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................... .............................................5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .......................................................................... .............................................6
3.1 Biotic Communities ............................................................................ ............................................6
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp ............................................. ............................................6
3.1.2 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest ................................ ...........................................6
3.1.3 1tiIesic Pine Flatwoods .................................................................. ............................................7
3.1.5 Disturbed Roadside ...................................................................... ............................................7
3.1.6 Aquatic Community ..................................................................... ............................................7
3.1.7 Wildlife ........................................................................................ ............................................7
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................... ............................................8
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ....................................................................... ............................................8
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ........................................................................... ............................................9
3.2.3 Natural Resources Perspective ..................................................... ............................................9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................. .........................................10
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................................................. .........................................10
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .......................... .........................................10
4.1.2 Permits .......................................................................................... .................................
.
l 1
4. 1.3 Avoidance. Minimization. Mitioation ........................................... ..
.....
.........................................12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................................................................. .........................................13
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .......................................................... .........................................13
4 .2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................... .........................................21
5.0 REFERENCES
........................................................................................ .........................................23
ACDOT AWTR - Replacement of Bridge.%o 81 on .572 1-2/6 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langlei and .McDonald. Inc Project \'o / 960024-208 O0 Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities ..................................................................... C)
Table ?. Federally Protected Species for Pender Count} .........................................................................1
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figure follows page listed)
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project ...................................................................................................... 1
.NC.UVI Nlll K - Keplacemenr of Bridge Ao 81 on SR l?lG over Ctpress Creek December 1999
Langley and.VcDonald. Inc. Project Ao- 1960024-208 00 Page iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the replacement of Bridge Number 81 on SR 1 16 over Cypress Creel:
in Pender County. The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources that
occur .vithin the proposed right-of-way boundaries and are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular 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 project boundaries and design. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek.
Pender County (Figure 1). The existing two-lane shoulder cross-section is 9.1 meters (30.0 feet) wide.
The proposed cross-section is a nvo-lane shoulder section as well. The current and proposed right-of-
way %vidth for this project is 18.3 m (60.0 ft). The current structure is an open deck with a steel plank
floor on I-beams. Project lenLth is as much as 121.9 m (400.Oft) ,?'est of the ezistim-, bridle and as
much as 700 feet east of the existing bridge. Three alternatives are being considered for this project
(Figure 2):
Alternative I - Replace the existing bridge in-place xvith a bridge: traffic will be detoured off-site
during, construction.
Alternative 2 - Replace the existing bridge in-place with a bridge; traffic will be maintained on-site
on a temporary structure to the south.
Alternative 3 - Replace the existing bridge on new alignment to the south with a bridge: traffic will
be maintained on the exist=, bridge.
1.2 Methodolod
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the
project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of' the
project area include:
%CD07 ARTR - Replacement o% Bridge .\'o 81 on SR 1116 over Clpres'.r Creek December / 999
Langley and.tlcDonald, lnu Proteet.%o 79600-?a-208 00 Page /
C.
1 ^- v
?'.
/ N
Costin r
/ 1336
345
Bridge No. 81 ?
1216 Piney Wood 1 16 339
4. 1 1337
/
9 134
i
1 vh? ?
GS Q
1338 3 1216
\ Rhyne
1351 Crossroads
v 121 .8 Q
?.
_____ 1336 ? a l
1220 2 _ Wards\ / ?.qp 11'?O
Comer t
1 140 Q 1 0
P 1122
\ 1404
1121
\ \ \ 0 \
y w i I •• l n..
,c. . N g. ?E R
? roinrr .
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Pender Counts
Replace Bridge No. 81 on SR M6
Over Cypress Creek
B-3361
Figure 1

t
1
I

w

I:V I
r .A
t
i?
i.i
1
i

• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5" quadrangle maps (Costin. NC).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1 20).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service. (currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service).
Soil Surve'i- of Pender Counts, North Carolina (1990 ). and
• N.C. Division of Water Quality Cape Fear Basinit1de ,11anauenient Plan (1996)
11
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina- (15 September 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biolo??ical
Conservation Database (September 1999). NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of
state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
Lanaley and McDonald. Inc. Environmental Specialists Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith
conducted general field surveys along the proposed alignment on 13 October 1999. These survevs
were conducted under abnormal circumstances as water levels were at unusually high levels due to
rainfall and f7oodina associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd.
Water resources were identified. and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally folio-,.y Schafale and W'eakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et
al. ('1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980). Palmer and Braswell (1990, Potter et al.
(1980). Webster et al. (1980. and Williams et al. (1990. Vegetative communities were mapped
utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques including qualitative habitat
assessment based on vegetative communities. active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and
tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands. if present. were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Wunual (1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEM 1990. Wetlands were classified based on the classification
scheme of Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits
along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0
km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project rebion" denotes an area equivalent in size to
the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map (i.e., 163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)).
NCDOT A RTR - Replacement of Bridge.S o b'/ on SR 121() over Cypress (reek December 1999
Langlev and.l/cDonald. tic Proleci .yo /960074-'//,S 00 PuKe 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to possible
environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for
soil erosion and compaction and other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
'A ater resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the need to
regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of'
water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities. thus
afrectin<, the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Pender Countv lies in the lower coastal plain physiographic province in southeastern North Carolina.
Dominant soils are primarily loamy and sandy. A seasonal high water table is the main limitation to
development. County elevation ranges from sea level to 33.5 m (1 10.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
Project elevations average 9.1 m (30.0 ft) msl. The Cape Fear, Black, and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers
drain nearly the entire county. (USDA 1990)
2.2 Soils
There are three soil types located in the project area. They are as follows:
• Yluckalee loam, frequently flooded (yIk) is a poorly drained soil found on floodplains. It has a
surface laver of ] 2-inch thick dark grayish brown loam. It has moderate permeability, with very
slow surface runoff. and medium infiltration. The seasonal high water table is 0.2 m (0.5 ft) to 0.5
m (1.5 ft) below the surface most of' the year. This soil is subject to frequent flooding. The main
limitations of this soil for development are wetness and flooding. The Capability Unit is Vw.
(USDA 1990)
• Lumbee fine sandy loam. occasionally flooded (Lu) is a poorly drained soil. In low areas this soil
is subject to ponding for brief periods. The surface laver is a 7-inch thick very dark gray fine sandy
loam. It has moderate permeability, very slow surface runoff. and medium infiltration. The
seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. The land capability class is IIw in drained areas
and VIw- in undrained areas. (USDA 1990)
• Norfolk loamy fine sand (NoB) is a well-drained soil found on convex interstream divides near
major drainage ways. The surface laver is a 9-inch thick grayish brown loamy fine sand. It has a
moderate permeability, medium runoff, and rapid or medium infiltration. The seasonal high water
table is 1.2 m (4.0 ft) to 1.8 m (6.0 ft) below the surface. The land capability classification is Ile.
(USDA 1990)
.N( Uv/ .%K/K - Keplacemenr o% Bridge .Ao SI on SR 1116 over ()press Creek _ December 1999
Lanelev and AlcDonald. lnc Project.%o 196002-J-208 00 Page 3
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards. and water quality aspects of the water resources. along with their relationship to major
regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are
also discussed. as are means to minimize impacts.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and non-
point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource
information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of
water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic
organisms.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. State Route
1216 crosses one perennial stream. Cypress Creek, the only water resource in the project area (Figure
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for Cypress Creek
(DEN1 Index No. 18-74-55(2). 4/1/59) is C - Sw (NCDWQ 1999). Class C refers to waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival. fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Sw refers
to swamp waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
At SR 1216, Cypress Creek is approximately 22.9 m (75.0 ft) wide and ranges from 1.2 to 1.8 m (4.0 to
6.0 ft) deep. The substrate in the study area is a sandy loam. The riparian community is a Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp consisting of species such as green ash (Fraxinus penns_vhlanica), laurel
oak (Ouercus laurifolia). American elm (Cletus americana), false nettle (Bochmcria cvlindrica), netted
chain fern (If`oodit,urdiu areolata), giant cane (.4rundinuria ('ig(J171ea), and laurel-leaved greenbrier
(Smilax laurifolia).
2.3.3 Water Quality
There are no registered point source dischargers located in or directly upstream from the project study
area (NCDWQ 1999).
VCDUT .VR7'R - Replacemeni c.1 Rridee.Vo b'l on JR 1 216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Lan ,lev and .McDonald. Inc Frolecl .Ao 1900 11--'4-2118 00 Page 4
The Basinwide \lonitoring Program. managed b% the DWQ. is part of an on,_,oinp ambient eater
quality-monitoring program that addresses lone-term trends in ,rater quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms
which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups (Ephemeroptera. Plecoptera. Trichoptera (EPT)) and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all
species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The
biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no benthic monitoring
stations on Cypress Creek in or above the project area.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction, including clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream
construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above-mentioned construction activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal,
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff,
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles. and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface FF'aters (NCDOT 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the United States" during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge removal will not exceed 48.9 cubic
meters (64.0 cubic vards). NCDOT's Beast iWanagement Practices,for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(B_L1P-BDR) (1999) must be applied for the removal of these bridges.
AUDOT ARTR - Replacement of Rrrdgc.A o b'1 on SR 1210 over C,tpress Creek December 1999
LangleY and UcDonald, Inc. Project Ao 1960024-20S 00 Rage 5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area and the relationships between fauna and flora within these
communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography. soils. hydrology. and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These classifications
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna
observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna described
from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities. making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. There are five communities located in the project area.
These communities are discussed belo\y.
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community is located on the north and south sides of the existing
bridge and would be impacted on the southwest side by the on-site detour. It appears that this area is a
riparian buffer left after logging the adjacent areas. It is bordered by roadside, Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and successional agricultural communities. The canopy is dominated by
red maple (Ater rubrum), water tupelo (t vssa aquatica), laurel oak (Uuercus laurifoliu), sweet gum
(Liyuidambar styrucifua). Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana). and vellow-poplar (Liriodenclron
tulipiferu). The understory is composed of red maple, black cherry (Prunus serotina), red bay (Persea
boi-bonia), and ironwood (C'urpinus curoliniunu). The shrub and ground layers include wild grape
(Vitis rotundifolia). American holly (Ilex opaca), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), rattan vine (Berchemia
scandens), blackberry (Rebus urirutus), cinnamon fern (Osmundu cinnamomea), greenbrier (Smilax
rotunclifolici). giant cane (.4i-undinuria ii?untea), false nettle (Boehmeriu c'vlindi-icu), lizard's tail
(Sutu-urus cernuus), blueberry (F actinium sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Loniceru japonica).
3.1.2 Coastal Plain Bottoniland Hardwood Forest
A Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest community is bordered by the Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp to the west and is contiguous to the Mesic Pine Flatwoods community to the east. This
community will be impacted by any project alternative. The canopy is composed of loblolly pine
ACD0T.%RT1Z - Replucemem of Brtdte.\o 81 on SR 1216 over Ctpress Creek December 1999
Lander una` AkDonuld,, lnc. Prolect Ao /9600-11-?0N 00 Page 6
(Pinus tacda). yellow-poplar. and sweet gum. The understorv is dominated by flowerin? doL,v?ood
(Cornus )`lorida). American holly. and Carolina ash. The shrub and ground lavers include blueherrv
(I uccinhon sp. ). greenbrier. Japanese honeysuckle. and poison ivy.
3.1.3 Alesic Pine Flatwoods
A Mesic Pine Flatwoods community is located northeast of the existing bridge adjacent to the Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest. It will be impacted by the bridge replacement. This community is
composed of loblolly pine in the upper canopy. The understorv contains red maple. water oak
(Ouercus nigra). flowering dogwood. sweet gum, yellow--poplar, red bay, and wax myrtle (alt rica
cerifera).
3.1.4 Successional Agricultural Field
A successional agricultural field is located on the northwest side of Bridge No. 81. It is bordered to the
north by disturbed roadside and to the west by the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The dominant
species in this community are yellow-poplar, loblolly pine. winged sumac (Rhos copallina), silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia). bulrush (Scilpus spp.), broad-leaf cattail (7:tpha latifolia). preenbrier, sweet
bav Gllfugnolia rirginiana). yellow jasmine (Gelsemiaf m sempervirens). Japanese honeysuckle,
blackberry. and goldenrod (Solidauo spp.).
3.1.5 Disturbed Roadside
The disturbed roadside community is located on both sides of SR 1216 and will be impacted by both
the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. Due to mwxino and the use of herbicides this
community is kept in a constant state of early succession. The dominant species in this community are
fescue (Festuca sp.), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), goldenrod, clover (Oxalis sp.) and wild onion
(Allium conadense).
3.1.6 Aquatic Communin-
This community consists of Cypress Creek. Aquatic insects that may be found in this community
include the water strider (Gerris sp.), dragonfly (Odonata sp.). crane fly (Tipula sp.), mosquitoes
(Diptera sp.) and black-winged damselfly (Caloptei- .Y muculata).
3.1.7 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while
the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds associated with ecotones and
,N( UV I AHI H - Replacement of Briarwc .\'o. b' I on SR 12/6 m er Ctpress Creek December 1999
Lander and .tleDonald, Inc, Project .%o /960021-?llh'.IIU Page 7
wetlands are the least shrew (Cr pototis parva). southern shoe-tailed shrew (Blarinu ccrrolinc'nsicl.
hispid cotton rat (Sigmocion hispiclu.s). and eastern cottontail rabbit (Stlvilugus floridumts).
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals.
Birds often associated with swamp communities include red-winged blackbird ( 4gehlh s phocniccus).
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronatu) and common
yellow throat (Geothltipis trichas). Retiles and amphibians that may also frequent this area include the
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) and spring peeper (Hula crucifer).
Mammals that may frequent the swamp and bottomland hardwood forest communities include white-
footed mouse (Peromvscus leucopus) and raccoon (Prot' on lotot). In addition. white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near this
community. Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring
peepers and northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) breed in semi-permanent pools during the spring.
Rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta). worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus), ring-necked snakes (Diadophis
punctatus), queen snakes (Regina septemvittata) and the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina
carolina) may be found here as well.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods may provide habitat for such animals as the blue jay (Cvanocitta cristata).
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctanrs punctatus),
corn snake (Elaphe guttatu guttata). and eastern box turtle.
Successional communities such as the successional agricultural field provide good habitat for such
animals as the mourning dove (Zenaida n2acroura), white-footed mouse, white-tailed deer, and the
brown snake (Storeriu deka-0).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described above.
Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of' the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing and paving
of portions of the project area and thus the loss of community area. Table 1 summarizes potential
losses to these communities resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial
communities reflect the relative abundance of' each community present in the study area. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in Section 1.1 and the entire proposed
right-of-wav width of 15.3 m (60.0 ft) for the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. However,
_ 001 .A7178 - Replacement of73rvdYe .A o 81 on SR 1210 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langlei aml.llcDonalcl. lnc Project .Ao 196002-1- '08 00 Page 8
project construction oven does not require the entire right-of-??ae: therefore. actual impacts ma\ he
considerable less.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic communit,' of Cypress Creek will result from physical disturbance of' aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality) associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 81.
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition be reducin?-1
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.
• Alaal blooms resultinL, from increased nutrient concentrations. and
• Loss of benthic macro in vertebrates through scourinc resultinL, from an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BNIPs.
3.2.3 Natural Resources Perspective
Alternative one is the recommended alternative for the proposed project based on the smallest impacts
to wetlands (0.05 ha (0.1 1 ac)).
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.

Community Alt. 1
Bridge
Replace* Alternative 2
Bridge On-Site
Replace* Detour** Alternative 3
Bridge On-Site
Replace* Detour**
Coastal Plain Small Stream 0.03 ha 1 0.03 ha 0.27 ha 0.27 ha 0.03 ha
Swamp***
-------------- --- (0.07 ac)
-------- --- (0:07 ac) (0.66 ac) (0.66 ac) (0.07 ac)
Coastal Plain Bottomland 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha
Hardwood Forest*** (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac)
Mestc Pine Flatwoods 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha
(0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac)
Successional Agricultural Field*** 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0?7 ha 0._7 ha 0.00 ha
-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------- (0.00 ac) (0.00 ac) (0.66 ac) (0.66 ac) (0.00 ac

Disturbed Roadside - -
0.02 ha -
0.02 ha --
0.08 ha - - - --
0.08 ha - -------
0.02 ha
(0.04 ac) (0.04 ac) (0.20 ac) (0.20 ac) (0.04 ac)
Total Impacts 0.03 ha 0.05 ha 0.62 ha 0.62 ha 0.05 ha
(0.1 1 ac) (0.11 ac) (1.52 ac) (1.52 ac) (0.1 1 ac)
, cmpuran impacts ---tmpaciea vortions are Jurisdictional Wetlands
NOTE: Alternative I contains an off-site detour.
eCDOT ARTIZ - Replacement of llriclge .eo 81 on SR 1316 over Clpress Creek Deceniher 1999
LansZlet curd .tlc•Donuld. Inc Pro/eel .Ao 1900024-?UN 00 Page 9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory issues:
..waters of the United States" and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular significance
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals specifically ?%ith
C4 -
the impact analyses required to satisfy federal and state regulatory programs prior to project
construction.
4.1 "Waters of the United States"
Surface ,raters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States," as defined
in 33 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growin(
season (USACE 1987).
4. L I Characteristics of J[Veflands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hvdric soils, hvdrophytic vegetation
and hydrology. Wetlands in the project area are located in the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and successional agricultural field. Vegetation in these
areas is described in Section 3.1 above. Soils in these communities are as follows:
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
0 to 30 cm (0 to 12 in) - matrix color of 10 YR 411, no apparent redoximorphic features
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0 to 15 cm (0 to 6 in) - matrix color of 2.5 Y 4/1, no apparent redoximorphic features
Below 15 cm (6 in) - matrix color of 2.5 Y 6/2 with 7.5 YR 5/8 redoximorphic features
Successional Aericultural Field
0 to 30 cm (0 to 12 in) - matrix color of 10 YR 4/1, no apparent redoximorphic features
As shown in Table 1 (page 9). permanent ?yetland impacts for the replacement of the bridge and on-site
detour vary between alternatives from 0.03 ha (0.07 ac) to 0.54 ha (0.66 ac). Alternative 1 would result
in the smallest wetland impact: thus. the recommended alternative for this project from a natural
resources and jurisdictional waters perspective.
The Cowardin classification for these wetlands is PFO 1 C (palustrine. forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded. The wetlands within the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp of the proposed
yCDOT AWTR - Replacement of Bridge .yo 81 on SR over Cipress Creek December 1999
Lai ,(!Iev and .tlcDonaid, Inc Project .yo 1960024-208 00 Pa,Ke 10
project area receive a rating of 64 based upon Guiti[IIWC fin- Rating 117C IC '1111cs
11 CQ/'OlitMI (MA'Q 1990. The wetlands within the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hard%\ood Forest and
Successional Agricultural Field are rated as 20 (D%VQ 1995).
Physical aspects of surface waters are described in Section 2.3.1. Cypress Creek flows into the Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp system on the south side of Bridge 81.
4.1.2 Permits
As described above impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
"waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized. regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal
agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Police .Act:
• that the activity. work. or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individualiv nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water 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 manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
The NCDOT built Bridge No. 81 in 1972. This bridge carries SR 1216 over Cypress Creek in Pender
County. It has an asphalt overlay surface on prestressed concrete channel sections, is 27.7 m (91.0 ft)
long and 9.1 m (30.0 ft) wide. The bridge has prestressed caps, pile bents and end bents. There is the
potential for parts of all three spans of the bridge deck to he dropped into the water at the project site
during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill into "waters of the U.S." will amount to no
more than 48.9 cubic meters (64 cubic yards) of material. All temporary fill material will be removed
from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process and will therefore not require a
permit.
.\C'DOT.%RTR - Replacement ofHrtc,?e .\o 81 on SR 12/0 over Cypress C'reel'' December 1999
Lungley and .11cDonald. loc Protect.1 o 1900024-20800 Page /I
4.1.3 Avoidance, 11inintization, : 1itiration
The Army Corps of Engineers has adopted through the Council on Em ironmental Quality (CEQ). a
wetland mitigation police which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical. biological and physical integrity of
"waters of the United States.' specificalIN wetlands. Mitigation of Nvetland impacts has been defined
by the CEQ to include avoiding impacts (to wetlands). minimizing impacts. rectit?1110 impacts.
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance. minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of ayertine, impacts to "Waters of the
United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts. such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practicable in terms of cost. existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to `' ,vaters of the United States.- Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths. fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of "W"aters of the United States." specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site
whenever possible.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result
in the fill or alteration of 0.13 ha (0.33 ac) or more of wetlands and/or 45.7 m (1 50.0 linear ft) or more
of perennial streams.
This project avoids and minimizes to the maximum extent practicable by replacing the existing two-
lane bridge and approaches as mentioned in alternative one (Table 1). Mitigation for this bridge
replacement will not likely be needed. If' compensatory mitigation is required, written approval of a
final mitigation plan is required from the D'WQ prior to the issuance of' a 401 Certification. Final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the USACE.
A0007 \R71? - Replucemenr of Brie%e .Ao Si on SR 12l0 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Lunelev anal Aic-Donald.. lnc pro/ecl .Ao 19(,oo,1- oh (y) pane 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are. in the process of decline due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with human development. Federal la\\ (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended) requires that any action likely to adyersel\ affect a
species classified as federally protected be subject to reyie\y by the United States Fish and NVildliff
Service (F\VS). Other species ma- receive additional protection under separate state lays.
4.2.1 Federally Protected 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 15 September 1999. the FWS lists
twelve federally protected species for Pender County (Table 2). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impacts follows. The project area was surveyed for the presence federally protected species and
their habitats on October 13. 1999 by Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith. No federally
protected species were determined to be present.
Table 2. Federal and state protection statuses for federally listed in Pender County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Carcua caretta Threatened Threatened
Green sea turtle Chelonia mvdas Threatened Threatened
West Indian Manatee Trichechus n7anatus Endan,2ered Endangered
Piping Plover Chcrradrius melodus Threatened Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoidcs borealis Endangered Endangered
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrunz Endangered Endangered
American chaffseed Schiralbea americana Endangered Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum coolevi Endangered Endangered
Golden sedge Carex lutea Prop. Endangered Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lvsimachia asperulifolia Endangered Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranth pumilus Threatened Threatened
• 1 (S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. The American alligator is threatened due to similarity of appearance
to another rare species that is listed for protection. T(S-A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation of the
Endangered Species Act. A biological conclusion for the species is not required.
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throt-12hout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
,AUDU7 .A'R7R - Replacement of Bridge.A'o A'1 oil SR 12/0 over Cipress Creek December 1999
Laogler and 1kDonald. lnc Protect A o 19600_'-!- 0S 00 Page 13
All;ator mississippiensis (American alligator) T (S/A)
Animal Order: Lorcata
Federally Listed: May 2. 1997
.411igator mississippiensis range from 1.8 to 5.8 m (6.0 to 19.0 ft.) in length. This reptile has a broad
snout. a short neck. a heavv body. and a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish or dark (-,ray. but
faint yellowish crossbands are sometimes evident. The voun are black with conspicuous yello\y
crossbands. This species is similar to the spectacled caiman but has a small. cursed bony ridge in front
of the eyes.
The American alligator inhabits fresh water swamps. marshes. abandoned rice fields. ponds. lakes. and
backwaters of large rivers. Although its range once extended north in the coastal plain to the Dismal
Swamp, the American alligator is now rarely observed in the area north of the Albemarle Sound and in
much of the upper coastal plain.
In June, the female builds a large mound of leaves, mud, and debris about 60 cm (23.6 in) high, 120.0
to 200.0 cm (47.2 to 78.7 in) wide usually located in a shaded area a few meters from the water. She
deposits about 30 eggs in a cavity atop the mound, remains nearby, and challenges all intruders,
frequently including man. Hatchlings about 21 cm (8.3 in) long emerge in late summer or early fall.
(Nla?-tof c t al. 1980)
The wetland habitat that the American alligator needs is present at this site. Although this creek may
be too small to support the alligator. the likelihood of occurrence is possible due to the close vicinity of
the Cape Fear River. However, the NCNHP database was checked and there were no records of
existing populations of alligator in the project vicinity.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: Julv 28, 1978
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet, North Carolina through Florida and on a
small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the eastern coast of'
Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Adult loggerheads weigh between 77 and 227 kg (170 to 300 lbs) and are 80 to 120 cm (31 to 47 in)
long. The loggerhead can be distin- fished from other sea turtles by its unique reddish-brown color.
The loggerhead is characterized by a large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise the)- have 5 or more costal
plates .vith the first touching the nuchal and three to four bridge scutes.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are characterized
by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
AC D01'.A'RTR - Replacement of Bridge yo S'! on .572 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
1_anglev and.VcDonald, Inc !'ro/ect No 19600-14- 208 00 Page I 4
The project site i? unsuitable for the log«erhead sea turtle for a variety of reason:. the most important
being proximity to the ocean. In addition. the NCNHP database was reviewed and rc?ealed no rccord?
of loggerhead sea turtles in the project area. Construction of the proposed project will ha%e no effect
on this species.
Trichcchus manatu.? (West Indian manatee) E
Animal Family: Trichechidae
Federallv Listed: 3 11,67: 6'"70
The manatee's historic range included the Gulf Coast as far west as Texas and the Atlantic Coast as tar
north as New Jersey. Delaware, and VirLinia. Winter populations are now limited to the southern half
of the Florida peninsula. In summer they have been sighted as far north as North Carolina and west as
far as the Florida panhandle. Although manatees found in North Carolina are considered to be
migratory, there is evidence of over-wintering by manatees in warm-water discharges from power
plants.
The manatee is a large, grav or brown, barrel shaped. aquatic mammal. Adults average three to four
meters (10 to 13 ft) long and weigh around 500 kv (1.100 lbs). The hindlimbs are absent and the
forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened horizontally. The wrinkled bode is
nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most of a manatees body is
visible. however. in murky waters (like North Carolina), only a small part of the head and nose are
visible.
Manatees are found in canals. sluggish rivers. estuarine habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as
3.7 miles. Thev are found in freshwater and marine habitats with a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) or more. In the
winter, between October and April, Florida manatees concentrate in areas with warin water. Uurinc
other times of the near. habitats with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supple. and proximity to
freshwater are preferred. It is believed that manatees require a source of freshwater to drink.
Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may
occasionally feed on fish. They spend five to eight hours a day feeding and consume up to 1 1 percent
of their body weiLht.
The main threats to the manatees existence are from the destruction of habitat and injury by boat/barge
collisions and flood control structures.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project site is unsuitable for the Nest Indian manatee primarily due to the distance from the ocean
and inlets. Manatees are not known to travel such a great distance upstream. In addition, the NCNHP
database was reviewed and revealed no records of Florida manatees in the project area. Construction of
the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
XCDOT .A'RTR - Replacement ol-BrtdQe .Ao. -Yl on W? /2/6 over Ctpress Creek Decenther 1999
LarLlei and lfcDonald. Inc Protect .Ao_ 19600114-221' 00 Page 15
Churudrizo melocho (pipim_ plovers T
Animal Family: Charadriidac
Federally Listed: December 11. 198
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. An averaLe bird Lro%\ s to
about 17.5 cm (7 in) in length and has a wine span of 37.5 cm (15 in). It can be identified by the
orange legs and black band around the base of its neck. During the winter the plover loses its black
band. its legs fade to pale yellow. and the bill fades to black. Waite underparts. a single black
breastband. and a black bar across the forehead characterize breedinc birds.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from
North Carolina southward into the Florida Kevs and alonL, the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their
breeding grounds in March or early April
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most
commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is
a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles. The piping plover feeds
on invertebrates such as insects and marine worms. The piping plover is very sensitive to human
disturbances. The presence of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest and quit feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The habitat needed to support the piping plover is not found in the project area. Almost all of the area
is vegetated and the materials to build their nests are not present. The NCNHP database was reviewed
and there are no records indicating that this species exists in the project vicinity. As such, constriction
of this project will have no effect this species.
Picoide.s borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Federallv Listed: October 13. 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
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 white cheek patch surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of' southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus pulustris),
,A CUOT .A R7*R - Repiaeenrenr of BridVc .yo h'1 on SR /2/0' over Ctpress Creek December 1999
Langlei an,i.VcUonalcl. lnc P'-merr .A 'o /90002-!- 08 00 Page 16
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine. lack a thick
understorN. and he continuous Mth other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RC%N'. These birds
nest exclusively' in trees that are greater than 60 vears old and are continuous with pine stands at least
30 years of a(-,e. The foraLinL, range of the RCVS is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acrea(_,c 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 can occur from 3.6 to 30.3 m (12 to 100 ft) above the
ground but average 9.1 to 13.7 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be identified b, a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by
the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair -
and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and .tune and hatch 3S
days later. Clutch size ranges in number from three to five eggs. All members of the colon share in
raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands that the RCW needs are not present in the project area. The pines around
the project site are few and are contained in the mixed pine-hardwood community. In addition. this
community is not contiguous to other stands of older pines that would enable it to be foraging habitat.
The NCNIJP database contains no records of existing populations of RCVS' in the project area. Based
on these facts. construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
.-lcil)enser ht-eriroso-um (Short-nosed sturgeon) E
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: March 11. 1967
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter (3 feet) in length) species of fish that occurs in the lower
sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River, Canada to the Indian
River, Florida. It can be differentiated from the Atlantic sturgeon because of its shorter snout, wider
mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields (the short-nose having one row and the Atlantic which has
two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than sea water. It feeds benthicly
on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is an anadromous species that spawns
upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least
two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded, in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants
to reproduce successfully.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
JCDOT ARIR - Replacement of Brkipe yo h'! on SR 1210 over (}press Creek Uecernber 1999
Langlcr anci.llcDonaid, lnc P-olect Ao 196003-1_?Q,Y 00 Page 17
The size of Cypress Creek is not adequate to support the short-nose sturgeon. and the creek is too f.;:
from the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The NCNHP database was reviewed and no records were
revealed indicating short-nose sturgeon populations in the project area. TherefOrc, bridge construction
will have no effect on this species.
Schit,ulbeu umericultcr (American chaff-seed) E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late MaN-early June
This species is known historically from Alabama. Connecticut. Delaware. Rentuckv, Mari land.
iVlassachusetts. New York. Tennessee. and Virginia in which it has been extirpated. The onlN
confirmed North Carolina population is on Fort Bragg military base in Hoke County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at all) and grows to a
height of three to eight decimeters (1? to = 1 in). The entire plant is pubescent with upwardly curving
hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate. lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless, and two to five cm (0.5 to 1
in) long. The leaves are three veined and become progressively smaller towards the top. The
purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long narrow capsule, enclosed in a
loose-fitting sack-like structure.
This species occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas. ecotonal areas between
peat wetlands and open `rays-sedge systems. Soils are generally sandy. acidic, and seasonally moist to
dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of open habitat for the American chaff-Seed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of moist pine flats occurs in this area, however. the stand is not open or well
maintained enough to support the American chaff-seed. Additionally, no records of' this species being
present on or near this site occur in the NCNHP database. As such. construction of' this project will
have no effect on this species.
Thalictrum coole-vi (Cooley's meadowruc) E
Plant Family: Raminculaceae
Federally Listed: Fehruary 7. 1989
Flowers Present: late June-Jule (best mid Jule)
Cooler's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that grow to one meter (3 feet) in
length. Stems are usually erect in direct sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail along
the ground in shade areas. Leases are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed; some two or three
lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals, but staminate ones have yellowish to white sepals
and lavender filaments about flye to seven millimeters long. Pistillate flowers are smaller and have
\ CUU/ .SRI R - Replucemoit of Urid"Ic .A'o ?'/ on SR 12/0 orer (ipre.%.s Creek Uecemher 1999
Lanvicr and.kh Donald Ins Proicci %o /960024_20 ' 00 Pagc IN
!greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowix ellipsoidal achenes. five to six mm (about 0.' in) lone. Fruits
mature from ALIQust to September.
This plant is found in moist to wet hogs. saN annas and savanna-lilac openings. sand\ roadsides.
riL,hts-of-ways. and old clearcuts. It is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain its habitat.
All known populations are on circumneutral. poorly drained. moderately permeable soils of the Grifton
series. It only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The open bog and savanna-!Ike habitats on which Cooley's meadowrue depend are not found in the
project area. The NCNHP database was reviewed and no records were found indicating a population of
this species in the pro* _ject vicinity. Therefore, construction of this project will have no effect on this
species.
Carex lutea (Golden Sedge) PE
Plant Family: Cyperaceae
Federally Listed: August 16. 1999
C-.trcx haeu in No:-th Carolina has only been identified in Pender and Onslow Counties in the outer
coastal plain. The records of this species indicate that it is very localized and endemic to wet savannas
underlain with limestone deposits. (LeBlond et al. 1994)
This plant has pale. %ellowish-green scales. narrow leaves, a sparsely serrulate perigynum. and an
elongated inflorescence. It is found only in sand\ soils underlain by coquina limestone deposits. This
plant occurs in the partiall\ denscl\ tree shaded ecotone between the lonuleaf pine savanna and
nonriyerine swamp forest communities. The herb layer is generally dense and the area subject to
frequent fires. Vegetation that is often found with Cares 1wea includes pond cypress (Taxodium
asc07(lens). yellow-poplar (Liriodenclron tulipifera), red maple (,-leer rubrum), wax myrtle (,VIvriccr
cerifera). Cooler's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi). stargrass (.-lletris farinose). Cw-ex lonchoccrrpa,
royal fern (Osmunda regcrlis). obedient plant (Phvsostegia purpurea), and Carolina grass-of-Parnassus
(Parncrssiu earolinicmu). (LeBlond et al. 1994)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project site does not contain the proper habitat, sandy soils underlain with limestone, to support
this species. The NCNHP database was checked and it was determined that there are currently no
records of golden sed2C in the project Vicinity. As such. this species will not he affected by
construction.
\0007 .ARTR - Renlucement oTlirtcl?e.Aa -Y1 on SR l216 over Cypress Creek December /%%%
1,111 /el 11111.11c1)OWdd hic 1'rorco Ao 196 )II0 _'1_'0.1y l)0 Page 19
L_rsintachia asperulifolia
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12.
Flo?yers Present: June
(Rough-leaved loosestrife)
1987
E
This plant which is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South Carolina and is
currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is believed to be extirpated from South
Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that gro,,y to a height of three to six dm (12 to 24 in) from a
rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the showy yellow flowers. and
usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in terminal racemes of five petal flowers. Fruits are
present from Jule through October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins
(areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly drained soil). on moist to
seasonally saturated sands. and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to
occur on deep peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow. elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. It is rarely
associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The long leaf pine upland and the pond pine ecotone that rough-leaved loosestrife typically inhabits is
not present on the project site. The NCNHP database revealed no records of a population of this
species in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction activities for this project will have no effect on
this species.
Amaranthus pumilus (Seabeach amaranth) T
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed: April 7. 1993
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. It was historically known from
Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to » populations in North Carolina, New York, and
South Carolina.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps up to one foot in diameter containing five
to 20 branches. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in color and one to six dm
(four to 24 in) long. The thick, fleshy leaves are small, ovate- spatulate, emarginate, rounded and 1.0 to
1.5 cm (about 0.5 in) long. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the end of a
stem. and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in axillarv fascicles and the smooth, indehiscent fruits
are four to five mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively
inconspicuous and born along the stem.
yCDOT .ARTR - Replacement o% &i(4Kc .yo -YI on SR 1210' over (.rpress Creek Decen7her 1999
L071,Q/e1 an1l .llcD077a1d 177c Protect .yo 19000'!-'0,` 00 Page 20
Habitat for seaheach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a rclati,el% d,namic
and natural manner. It grox%s well in ovcr?,ash flats at the accreting ends of islands and the lower
foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. Temporan populations often form in blowouts.
sound-side beaches. dredge spoil. and beach replenishment. This species is vcr- intolerant to
competition and is not usually found in association with other species. Threats to seaheach amaranth
include beach stabilization projects. all terrain vehicles (ATV's). herbivor, by insects and animals.
beach grooming. and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is no habitat for seabeach amaranth on this project site. The NCNHP database was reviewed and
it was determined that there were no known populations in the project vicinity. Therefore. construction
of this project will have no effect on this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are twelve federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Pender Count-,. Federal species of'
concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any or its provisions. including Section 7. until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However. the status of these species is subject to change. and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition. organisms, which
are listed as Endangered (E). Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) in the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program Biological Conservation Database are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of FSC species
within 1 mi (1.6 km) the project stud, area. Table 3 lists federal Species of Concern. the state status of
these species (if afforded state protection). and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
VCDOTARTR - Replac'entetit ofBriclu A'o ,S/ on SR /,// over Ctpress Creek December 1999
Lantvlcl cold AIC.Dontald.. /1c, PrWecl .Ao I M002"-20S 00 Page 2/
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin. Lewis M.. V. Carter. F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRue. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS. GPO.
LeBlond. R.J.. A.S. Weakley. A.A. Rexnieek. and W.J. Crins. 1994. Caret Lutea (Cyperaccace), A
Rare New Coastal Plain Endemic from North Carolina. SIDA 16(1): 15-3- 16 1.
Martof. B.S.. W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailee and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
NC Department of Parks and Recreation. September 1999. Natural Heritage Program Biological
Conservation Database. NCDEHNR, Raleicyh. NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters. NCDOT. Ralei(,h. NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1999. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BiMP-BDP). NCDOT. Raleigh. NC.
NC Division of Environmental Management. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina. NCDEHNR. Raleigh. NC.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Chan-es in Water Quality,
1983-1990. NCDEHNR. Ralei??h, N.C.
NC Division of Water Quality. September 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDEHNR. Downloaded from
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us%strmclass/sclasses.html.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1996. Cape Fear River Basinvide Water Quality Management Plan.
NCDEHNR. Ralei(-,h. N.C.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University ol'North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Potter, E.F.. J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulin(-,s. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E.. H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
AC UUl AKI K - Replucement of Br1dW .Ao N1 on S/? 1 _'l G over Clpren Creek December 1999
LanElc v and,UcDonuld, lnc Prolect .%() 1 9600 4- 08 00 /,ctge 23
Table 3. State protection statuses for federal Species of Concern listed in Pender Count
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
.4intophila aestivalis Bachman's sparro%\ SC NO
Ammodramus hen.sloivii Henslow's sparrmv -- NO
Corvnorhln2(s raflncsquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SUPT ** NO
,tlvoti.s austroripariirs Southeastern bat SC NO
Heterodon .simus Southern hoanose snake --'PSC * NO
Rana capito capita Carolina gopher frog SC/PT NO
.4g1-otis buchhoL-i Buchholz's dart moth -- NO
Fusconaia inasoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE NO _
Hemipachnobia subporphvrea subporphyrea Venus flytrap cutworm moth -- NO
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE NO
Procambarus pluminianus Croatan crayfish -- NO
Spartiniphaga carterae Carter's noctuid moth -- NO
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana Georaia indigo-bush E NO
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T NO
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge -- NO
Dioneo muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC NO
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC NO
.;V acbridca carolinana Carolina boamint T NO
Oxtipolis ternClte Savanna cowbane -- NO
Parnassia carohnianu Carolina grass-of-parnassus E NO
Plantago sparsiJlora Pineland plantain E NO
Rhynchospora thornei Thorne's beaksedge E NO
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E NO
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod T YES
Tofieldia glabru Carolina asphodel C NO
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E NO
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to
be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the forese eable future thro ughout all
or a significant portion of its ranee.
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Co ncern plants that are also
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is ven rare in North Carolina. generally with 1-20 popula tions in the state,
generall\ substantially reduced in numbers by habit at destruction, direct exploitation or disease . The species is also
either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main ranee in a different part of the country or the
world.
• "!P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered. Threatened , or Special Conc ern, but
has not yet completed the listing process.
• * - Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
• ** - Obscure record - the date and/or location of obser vation is uncertain.
NCDOT.ARTR - Replacement ofBridve Ao NI on SR 12/0 over Cypress Creak December 1999
Langley and .1leDouald. Inc Protect \ 0 l moo'a-?alb' oO P age 22
Schafale. M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program. NC Division of Parks and Recreation.
Raleigh. N.C.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S.
USACE. VicksburL,. MS.
US Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County. North Carolina. USDA. Soil
Conservation Service. GPO.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. September 15, 1999. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina. USFWS. Downloaded from http://web.ral.r4.fxvs.gov/es/countyfr.htm1.
US Geological Survey. 1984. Topographic Map of Costin. NC. USGS, Reston, Virginia. Scale
1:24,000.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
.", ucii n Kl K - Keplacement of Hridge.\'o 8/ on SR /2/6 over Cpress Creek December 1999
Langlcr and AfeUonald. Inc Project .%o 1960024-20S 00 Page 2-1