20050648 Ver 1_Complete File_20050509

\ NA
r?9Q?
> w y
05uo(-(E
DWQ Project No.: USACE Action ID 200200650 County: HOKE_
Applicant: N.C. DOT-Division of Highways - Division 8 Construction
Project Name: B-4152 Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422 over Puppy Creek_
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: 9 May, 2005
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 Transportation Pemlitting
Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form
may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not
necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
Date:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
I, L7o?cr? ??, S?oTh? , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project,for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No. .2 !99
Date / 1-Vd,',1JZr
00
CZ)
t\O
No thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit IA'alurally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr,state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
d ? STAiry u
I\I?ci iiwi. F. EAv LeY
GoVEANOR
DIVISION OF HIGMVAYS
January 30, 2007
WBS NO.:
CONTRACT NO.:
T.I.P. NO.:
F.A. NO.:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33501.3.1
C201293
B-4152
BRZ-1422 (9)
HOKE
LyNi)o Tn,m rr
SLCRF I'ARY
Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek & Approaches on SR 1422
Mr. Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Division of Water Quality
N. C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Permit Completion Form
.Dear Mr. Klimek:
This is a letter of transmittal with the signed certification form attached for the project referenced
above. This permitted project was accepted for maintenance on October 26, 2006.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
Darren R. Scott, P.E.
RESIDENT ENGINEER
DRS:JLF:jlf
Cc: Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E.
Mr. Ellis Powell, Jr. P.E.
Mr. William A. Barrett, PDEA
P.O. Box 1067 / Aberdeen, N.C. 28315 / 910-944-7554 / Fax: [phone]
m '12
r,o tv i;.?:t
s
Filename: DWQcerts
% - - I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION sT ??ry
GOVERNOR SECRETARY . STNj
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDT
t.?s
April 14, 2004
O?
app Cv`vo(%
;1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
c?
Attention: Mr. Richard Spencer J
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 application. Hoke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 53
on SR 1422 over Puppy Creek, Federal Project No. BRZ-1422(5), State
Project No. 8.2530401, TIP No. B-4152.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422. Bridge No. 53 will be replaced on the existing alignment
with a new cored slab bridge approximately 100 feet in length. Permanent impacts to
wetlands associated with this project total 0.04 acre. An offsite detour will be utilized
during construction.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit drawings, half size
plans, Natural Resources Technical Report, and the EEP approval letter.
Puppy Creek is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrological Cataloguing Unit
03030004) and classified by the Division of Water Quality as C. Class C waters are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 53 has an asphalt wearing surface, and the remainder of the
bridge, both superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The asphalt
wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into the water. Also,
all timber and steel components of this bridge will also be removed without dropping into
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
2
waters of the United States. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, which dictates that all existing structures over water be removed by non-shattering
methods, will be followed during demolition and construction.
Permanent Impacts: The permit drawings report wetland impacts of 0.04 acre of permanent
fill and mechanized clearing. The permanent fill and mechanized clearing is due to the
approach roadway fill for the proposed structure.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened and Endangered Species: Plants and animals with federal classification of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 5
federally protected species for Hoke County. Habitat exists only for the endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauzii). Since there were no Michaux's sumac found during
surveys and there are no known populations of Michaux's sumac in the project vicinity, a
biological conclusion of "No Effect" is valid for this species. Biological conclusions of "No
Effect' 'for each of the remaining species are valid and are presented in the attached CE.
UTILITIES
There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters resulting from utility
line relocations.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: Specific avoidance and minimization measures for
this project include using a maximum slope of 2:1, replacing the existing bridge in its
current location, installing the bridge bents outside of the stream, and utilizing an offsite
detour.
COMPENSATION: This project will permanently impact a total of 0.04 acre of wetlands.
Despite the minimization strategies employed for the proposed project, the resulting wetland
impacts will require mitigation.
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (MOA)", it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the
Section 404 compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) transition
period which ends on July 1, 2005.
3
Since the subject project is scheduled to be let on September 20, 2005, after the transition
period, the necessary compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that
are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act will be provided by the EEP (see
attached letter from EEP). The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets
already in existence within the same Ecoregion and the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. We
have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.04 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP
program.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide 23 as
authorized by Nationwide Permit 23 FAR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3361 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Matt Haney at [phone].
Sincerely
R Grego f . Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. T. Johnson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Jennifer Parish, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
o stem
E a ement
PROGRAM
February 14, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
FRECEIVED
FEB lag 05
tmesq, OF HIGIMAYS
PDEA-0 RE OF HAVRAL ENYlROdi.1F1li
B4152, Bridge Number 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422, Hoke
County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on
the information supplied by you in a letter dated December 10, 2004, the impacts are
located in CU 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin in the Southern Inner Coastal Plain
(SICP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.04 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
2zutvr,l L9... E .. PYDtP,C,tl- oar State
i?"LDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP agrees to accept this project and will provide compensatory riverine wetland and
stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River
Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
z ?6. M bTL-1
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE-Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4152
Y
.....-ECO ystem
PROGRAM
February 14, 2005
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B4152, Bridge Number 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422, Hoke
County; Cape Fear River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030004);
Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 0.04 acre of unavoidable riverine wetland
impacts associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment I details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the NIOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP intends to provide compensatory riverine wetland. and stream mitigation up to a
NCDEKR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / Nmw nceep.net
2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Mitigation sites
currently containing surplus mitigation assets consists of, but not inclusive of, the Little
River and Jumping Run Creek Mitigation Sites.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4152
• 1
SHEET -?, OF 1 11 / 29 / 04

O
PROJE T
Cl
_ ?? -?
? A
VA BBEEGIN -
PRQJECT
D,
\ti

VICINITY
MAPS
lv CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HOKE COUNTY
PROJECT. =OL1 (B-4152)
BRIDGE NO.53 OVER
PUPPY CREEK ON SR 1122
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
TAR HEEL PO BOX 150
TURKEY HATCHERY RAEFORD NC
28376
2 GEORGE BALCH 4204 PHILLIPI CHURCH RD.
RAEFORD NC
28376

m E c
_
m?
N (A
O
o
Zin
rn a? a°i
U) N C O

U fD
x L o_ ?.
Q W U
a

w
Q dco
E c ?- o
C-
w F-
L)
LL

to cow O
v
?

c ? ? o
Z
tL

}

Q m p=
c *p
rn

O
O1
O
C
U
O
L m « c9
p
O
N V v o 0
H ?
a N °_
MU

f- U
a j
i3? p

a; W C

W Z =C/)
a g
w
CL.2
O
Q
g j
w
N
E N
?

w
?
7
N

C C
U

M
O
- c9 t0
- .:. O
p O
O
LL y
m

O co
N

T
7 F-

=

2 m LU
C?
(D
N
L)
c w Q
° J d
_
N ?
Cl)
C ?
O J
O
U) O
LL..

J
tn Z p
H

t\0-4152-rdy-tsh-030219.Cpn
? ° T 7.E 7f° B41<91
0 0 0
p
O mr
1*2 0
mm Z°
o p o o
•Z
n gg b
C? co) U, o.
?`" u u u u u u x
u "' J
w w o w o%
v?-
?
N = -
cZi czi
o °
-n -n
0
° c g
o ? ? n
m
b.
II N N
° ?I II
'O o
?0 0
° co
m m
N N
3 m O b
m m
70 X o
ci
N N ? °o
O V a 04 ? Col
N
O
? a $
b
`n
m
N
m
m m o y?
m m
t:3 in
b
b'
O ??
ox
x ADO
y
oh?
h ?nO
y
0i
by
?a
o
tib
ro
?r
z
A
?ro
r
z
CA
-4
o
0
z

Z l

r?
i ?
'Ole
Q
O
O trj
MJ
V?M
ry
r?
b
l?
Q
n
O
k
ri)

1
0 F-i
0 WTJ

0 0

a

C4
a C3
o
?

O
E 03
E
A A ? :±
N N i ,V

m

s
r r ??

i

VI' LV-evvq oi7v gg
R oodxRDpi4496152_rdy_tsh_030219.dgn m9imai
r'r
CHLea
o B-41521 TIP P.RPYOCTO
C (OINT Tim (Cp9l"O
0 0 0
O ul w
O T ,
17n 0
'O
I C4-1
C o C C / a`
r
?., ? y ? G1 try y O ? n ? s ?' ,? ?
0 0 x ?' z 14 ,
c x x0p o "?? °m° mfr } `
n -? b o 0 o g- ?`? o 0
< till
11 ? -
th 0.
col
G1 G? 'v ? O o ?, '< I
-n ? 0 o t y N
yy ?o ? ? h ? ' ? a Q
ocg 'v o
°o
o 0 0 I: '! _J o O W-4
r m roj
O II ?7 N ? P
,? < G1 w ® 0
10
cn m
m m b „ }
m ;v 0 (' N
1? y b C
O Y? ?e7 W ? h L? ]
p[,v 0 :O? 1 ii'
Ith 0,
IMP
m -0
n= n q I ~,
[+D
N
N
c?
? m !:'° " "C lTj
m rn {
C2 N
Lft II
0
4 `? y
?z
in
?ACS ? 10
O ?;
'r
a
w w a ? y

s

J
N
N
N
N N
UI

?F
rdy_typ_030306.dgn
Y
r
N
m
O
Z
Z
Q
W
C
r
? m
m
O
z
z
p
N
F
O
O N
O ?.
O
?
p s
O
O N
O
0
"
0 ,11
b
0 ) ,
0
O )
c
O ? N

O 0
s
O ?
O
j
O ;
O
n
0
0
to
N
I
z r
N
u _
W
b =
r
-o
C
n

v

O

?- v
D V
A

o
m
b
o

v

N
m

o
O
z
D z
w O
+ w
N
O -n
o O
O M
s
22
v
O

z
0
m
D
m
m
m
O
m
m
m
0
mm
N
t
J
r
m
rA
m
0
0
0
s
m
m
ui
m
C -? N m+ N .Or.
m m -im>-o >v m>v r>v
x > :CM-4= 170 m-Im
-im
D
2 T
W 9>9 » -0>'D »
-I s ?z• z• ?z• Z.

°
? >a oa< ?aa
-omm my Gms my

< p.? =X00 93X X930 93X
m > m
m m
• m
m m•
yrr
77
m
< 1r
A {
7-
? N
Z '
9
>S D > >
N sm m0'
FMM> m > 'D
•
ZTT -Ti CA ZT9 Tcn
o v o m
j,> i?-1
mA m-1 00 •? m
0 0 -4
N
X WO XWn
W i
') r0
-I- = f)• m W=
? ?
•O -i
zmm •D9
mm m•O-4
0mm z+
m
n
s A -I 9 .0 -i _
",mi mm 9
T 9 m
O em O
- y
Z
m 4- > OA c
0 m zom > r
0
0 O
M. C of
• -<O m
v ?a o o
O om
-IVm c mvo
x mm
9 N -199 "0
o In x w =c
- ?m ar
> m ca
93 v am
3113 m o
? -
m
Om v
m m
V
v s
N -
I
-im m
m =f m V
m• m m
o
-im
F N
O- O O o -n
m QI T
- D
to
D
O
r3
ca

aT
4

as
O
N O
O ?
?: c 0
g o0
o m0
Z
v
?a
v?

-M N
--1 O
Oa
O
Dm
J 0
`o Z
+
En a)
O Zv

r9
O
0
9
cf
9
6
.

N ? J
N

cl
j C)
J
V r

L
4
s
if
N
r Z
I C
N ?^
O
C-)
rF? 9 F
I O
z 1
an
cr-H

o 1

r

m 1 3A -
-p 4
O 9 -0
..a I N Z

r
?
0 - fa

4 0
=:
5cyp
Q 7
v 2
C G
r r

=

O h
O

c
N '

I I I
? -i -1 -1
DDD
0cn oin
o C

m zo cQ
-o
z 0
•°z
° CO%oo
+++ m

9 o
O .n o -n o 0 0

C
_
-+0
O -4
00 o000
o
r
Z ? ?
-i-+-?
000 m
z N o
tn?
°O
• OyI
cz 00+
o0o O
z
,n
O cn
0m o0 O°?
o
Z
v -a 000 o O
O

;
O -Tl
O
O
? v
pDI-pDEC-pp00 08:51 8/17/99
R:\Hoadeo \P,?4\B-4 52-rdy-e4psh-030219.dgn
r
9+00 -r
- I
1 10
$ o?
? n
?
ok LIP
1 ? ?T bgL2
+ m G cao
+ ti r 'Y o 0
?1 I I ' '9 \ b : N Y93
I `
s 1€:?tl o`
Il 11 ? n n? w g? ?1?; I` I ? S3 y
r7i
1-4
M
o ?w +
II Q D igg O c !I ? N?a?'-zp.f•?,? CW -x
_.??
?'wNry Y
CUP
' I
is
\.. 9gA5 f 17 J' rL,
ouid ? ti .: D
•k / H ?e! lia?i? IN = 1
Y z? CY' + U
RC VY
+ r'v? vS= SS? }}k bh D O+ N
ZA'
A
o
??1` p © r ?? ? ?? ?g r
it i Z ? e _ i i S? : <YNi
1.? FI3 myo_
Q ?GD ?O 1 2 • t6 ? n 10i ? H } 1
Ell z
!_ N
o
m-D
F - -
U. r-q
.• c Nv '' y g e
m m ' k / +
m m
kk I `1 m
II
V) (.1)
IA to - I 3 I ? N
\ \ NS
-j :70 G
0
Cr _ JX k? `p ???\ \m I I y?
20
4) DO
O W `c +
wa
* x I
y

m?

m?

01,i
?rn
o
! i
1_030219.d`gn
I 1?
NO
r
O

'Ili pii4!':N'IAJI p?
?11
N
r
W
1 31 FffflrH
w
V
O
0
N
O
N '' m
r
N rl
N
sc:'"r'b
i?
ILA ::q
ry?ttP
EENNDD CC ? :::.. _........;:
?1R
5/14/99
I
?II
I

?in E?;m°m
c,rn m ???mmn,???s
tt)

r 'a a -u q r u,? u q'? y

..
rn ?
21
l1i A
?.?
"
?

::
_ V1
I VI--"?N :
a ?
a?
0
01-DEC-2004 08: 52 -
8/23/99
C Leood.. X E \P 44 R2_rdy_xpl_080304.dgn

1 9

-414 444
4# # WI TH !

H H L EL
.

I I . ITT IT,
i fi7

H I I T I,

1 44+
1 111

ttt

R M 4 0
--# 4 4p 4f4 4+

I T
U M

H1 i

4H 11- -
- -
rT rT
L LI I
44

l ITT

-H IL

ft
# f
IT T,

4 I'l l -

IT I

Ill IF t
. :

t*
H

4 ?

71i :
f
1
:
#
TT

V

.1

41

0
a I. . . f .I , , i ffl
+ t I iq
IT .

IIr2
2
I
:I
« 1 + 4
I: I 1 +

I +:

4 'T
1+

I T

I IT I T I LL

- --- - - - -- - --- - - - -- -

f

I ITT I
f

- - --- - -- --- - -- -- ---
TT
I
T
I

- I T
0

# # a i t
w

- 4 4 4

IT . I 'l l
W
M T- IT I
U
,

a
M T
V
N
V Z

I O
I

4 + TT IJ
X

N Z

-ncr_gnne na•,,a
R/77/99'
R2_rdy_xp1_080304.dgn
pl_080304.dgn
2'2'
.2
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4152
State Project No. 8.2530401
Federal Project No. BRZ-1422(5)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No.53 on SR 1422, over Puppy Creek, in Hoke
County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with a new bridge
105 feet (32 m) in length and 30 feet (9 m) in width. The new bridge will have a 22
foot (6.7 m) travelway. The offset of the bridge will be 4 feet (1.2 m) on each side.
The approach paved roadway will be 22 feet (6.7 m) in width. Turf shoulders
will be 6 feet (2.0 m) in width. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet
(1.0 m) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured over existing
secondary roads.
B. Purpose and Need: Replace obsolete bridge.
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
O 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
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of
users.
2
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 OMT 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 $550,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 29,000
Total Project Cost $579,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 700 VPD
Year 2025 - 1,300 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach paved roadway will be 22 feet (6.7 m) in width. Turf shoulders
will be 6 feet (2.0 m) in width. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet
0.0 m) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 55 mph (88 km/hr).
3
Functional Classification:
SR 1422 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 8 Engineer supports road closure and replacement at the
existing location.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be comple ted 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
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
-
X
F
1
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) 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
1 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? a 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? 1 X
F
(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
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X ?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X ?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
-
volumes? 1 X
F
5
(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? ? 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)? ? 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-4152
State Project No. 8.2530401
Federal Project No. BRZ-1422(5)
Proiect Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No.53 on SR 1422, over Puppy Creek, in Hoke
County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with a new bridge
105 feet (32 m) in length and 30 feet (9 m) in width. Traffic will be detoured over
existing secondary roads.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved
aq-p3
'L'U? 'd
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-4152, Hoke County
Bridge No. 53, on SR 1422
Over Puppy Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1422(5)
State Project 8.2530401
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Bridge Maintenance Unit, Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
The existing bridge has an asphalt wearing surface, and the remainder of the
bridge, both superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The
asphalt wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into
the water. Also, all timber and steel components of this bridge will also be removed
without dropping into waters of the United States.
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
Greensheet Programmatic CE Document 8-28-03 Page 1 of 1
ro3 ?. \_IV 1799 ,?,?
`
1301 ?(? ? .
' ? 1' 1 . C ? ' 2 401 MTYmau-
-\ ,• A.ryeA L ,?
? ? `1 141Q - \
1303
'

/ 1701 '•?
- ? 1411
i ' 1.4 1..
_ ? .
319 ?>?V ,aOD ` 1117 ?.
?-
UYEX My
FIX. IA=
\ tAIM
61 A
/- ,1 •
. 401
'•? • ., Itl6
IatO . ,• 1418 1 / 1 ?
?+
7
'1
• 1 577 laa •? 14t7
V
1 1412 J ? 9
3SO?
\
\? •\
L ,•? 1 \ 1.4 ?•
1 ?
,
,\ 1? '\
t
t- . lso6
115

` 54., ? ?. ,?, 1t72
'•
?
rp?tR? r, ?1
1
7 \? ? 1413 l
1
7
. P
401 \ i i'.
.•
-
.1 T
-_''?••? •? •--__ ,4 Pte.
\ \ \
.
./ P10
7a'y ? 1413 1
\G4
E 432
? 2 t??9
.. _\
•?
t . f OQ3 1. 8 ?
.
6 1_t29a
A
• G 1701 / d 14.

?
lf
CiJ
_
• ? paw
en
l IQ17
? ••'
O
'
O
\ .
?.
1?
T 1. 7 ' ?'
•I 1 1 cr...
••ti.. yr .?.
100) \
/
,!9
f lob
' 1417 1!M. Z
11 •, M1 Nlit.: ,f A •?•_ laal
/-

I.1
:{. •? 1435 / .
1112
11th ???••• 14M
?)
1147 1 IKO '@ t,
\_ ?.•?.,
O 1447 /
I
IIL7
,• 'Yy
• • /.
1 ,\
1197
,
• 0 \
I4_'K 39 /•
14
b
,
I . twy
•
n L
? I4?7 ?,
?,
i
`26 '
? Cund4 6?d, 14X '?• 9 ?.• /,/
tiers
1 119 / • ? a
' 1 cde ? r - > , 4 ? /-
/
'
IA&g 3.F Sr M
A Z
' 1176,,
'
' 'ems
.
? O ImJ7 1001• \
p /
.?.
- y
•

I,OS
?ocws AN
,!
/q/cNEILS @
A7VD ,?j•, Wl9
L
1 E i 14Z3
LAK

ILLg ? _ ? / • 1aa?
1151 \
,R
1107 .? .o s •??'`
4

,?17 , 1 .'? 0
1109
100 -7
,x, n
Studied Detour Route
of oarN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?;/ ??• TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 8
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
HoKE COUNTI'
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 53 ON SR 1422
OVER PUPPY CREEL:
B-4152
Fi;ure l
SIA7Z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jcf7rcy J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and Htstorv
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 1'
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 53 and SR 1422 over Puppy Creek, B-4152,
bloke Counn., ER-02-8590
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.

Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
I
There are no kslpwn archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikeh• that am, archaeological resources that mac be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National
Register eligibilin- of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register
eli?ibJlitz of the subject bridge. Please contact hian Pope Furr, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further studs- of the bridge is needed.
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 296
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/72929-47629. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 ?iail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, ILtlcigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613
Surveq a, Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 461 R Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618
Teitphone/Fax
(919) 7334763 •733-8653
[phone] •7154801
[phone] •7154801
5-16-2003
Memorandum to: File
Subject: B-4152, B-4247 Historic Eligibility
From: Dennis Pipkin
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
PDEA
The following emails document that neither of the subject bridges are eligible for the
National Register from an historic standpoint. The decision was made by Mary Pope Purr,
supervisor of the PDEA Historic Architecture unit. The SHPO in their letter dated March 22,
2002, had deferred to Ms. Purr for this decision.
Subject:
Question, B-4152,B-4247
Date:
Fri, 16 May 2003 16:02:49 -0400
From:
Dennis Pipkin <[e-mail]>
To:
Mary Pope Purr <[e-mail]>
Hello Mary Pope:
I need to confirm if these bridges are considered eligible.
B-4152, Hoke Co, Bridge No.53 on SR 1422.
B-4247, Richmond Co, Bridge No. 129 on SR 1321.
Thanks
Dennis Pipkin
Subject:
Re: Question, B-4152,B-4247
Date:
Fri, 16 May 2003 16:15:58 -0400
From:
"Mary Pope Furr" <[e-mail]>
Organization:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
To:
Dennis Pipkin <[e-mail]>
References:
1
I just checked, neither is eligible.
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1422, Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek
Hoke County
TIP No. B-4152
State Project No. 8.2530401
FAP No. BRZ-1422(5)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1422, Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek
Hoke County
TIP No. B-4152
State Project No. 3.2530401
FAP No. BRZ-1422(5)
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Issued by:
Earth Tech, Inc.
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Earth Tech Project No. 46164
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION .................................................................................................................. PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions .............................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators ...................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ..................................................................................... 3
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ............................................ 4
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 5
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ............................................. 5
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report .................................................. 5
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge Permits ................................................. 5
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................... 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..............................................................................................6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .....................................................................................7
3.1.1 Human-maintained areas ........................................................................7
3.1.2 Sand Ridge Woodland ............................................................................8
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest ....................................................................................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities .........................................................................................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .......................................................................9
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities .........................................................................9
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................... 10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..............................................................................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................. 11
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................11
4.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .........................................................12
4.1.4 Permits ..................................................................................................12
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ..................................................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ..............................................................................13
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection ........................................................13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status .......................................18
5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................20
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities ......................................10
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Hoke County ............................................14
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Hoke County .....................................................18
FIGURES to be added later
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ...................................................................... ..................... 2
Figure 2 Natural Communities . _ .._ ... 3
NOTE: Highlighted text denotes items not included in this draft that will be added later
by NCDOT personnel after alignments are developed.
February 2002
11
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) preliminary to the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of the preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of the preliminary design
concepts. It may become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should
design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge Number 53 on SR 1422
(Phillippi Church Road), which spans Puppy Creek. The project is located in eastern
Hoke County about 6 miles (9.72 km) east of Raeford, NC (Figure 1)
Alternate 1
Insert Alternate information here.
Alternate 2
Insert Alternate information here.
1.2 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Parkton, 1982)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Parkton, 1995)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200)
• Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties (Soil Conservation Service, 1984)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1996)
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
February 2002
1
A
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
list of protected and candidate species (page last updated March 22, 2001; last accessed
September 14, 2001), posted on the World Wide Web by the Ecological Services branch
of the USFWS office in North Carolina. Information concerning species under state
protection was obtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats. NHP
files were reviewed (June 29, 2001) for documented sightings of species on state or
federal lists and locations of significant natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth Tech
biologists on July 23, 2001. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat assessment
was performed within the project area of Puppy Creek. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows). Terrestrial community classifications generally
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows
Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant et al.
(1998), the American Ornithologists' Union (2001), Thorpe and Covich (1991), and
Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of
the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE,
1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used for describing the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Study corridor" and "project area" denote an area with
a width of approximately 200 feet (60.6 m) as delineated on materials provided by
NCDOT. The "project vicinity" is an area extending 1 mile (1.6 km) on all sides of the
project area, and "project region" is an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a
7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map (about 61.8 sq miles or 163.3 sq km) with the project
study area occupying the central location. When referring to stream banks, "left bank"
and "right bank" are relative to an observer facing downstream.
February 2002
2
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators
Investigator: Jane Almon
Education M.S. Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience Staff Biologist, Earth Tech- >2 years
Expertise Natural resources surveys, wetland restoration
Investigator: Daniel Ingram
Education B.S., Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience Staff Biologist, Earth Tech- >1 year
Expertise Wetland delineation, Wetland mitigation
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed with respect to
possible environmental concerns.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The project area lies in the eastern portion of North Carolina within the Sandhills
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 140 feet
(42.6 m) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The topography of the project
vicinity is generally flat.
The proposed project is in a rural area in Hoke County approximately 6 miles (9.72 km)
east of Raeford, NC. Hoke County's major economic resources are agriculture, military-
related employment, and manufacturing. The population of Hoke County in 2000 was
33,646 (North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning and Management 2001).
2.2 Soils
information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of Cumberland
and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (USDA 1984). The map units in the project area are
Johnston loam, Blaney loamy sand with 8-15% slopes, Lakeland sand with 1-8% slopes,
and Candor sand with 8-15% slopes. The Johnston soils are classified as hydric by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Johnston soils UT) are mapped along the banks of Puppy Creek within the project
area. These soils are nearly level and poorly drained. They are typical of flood plain
areas in the Coastal Plain, and are frequently flooded. The permeability is moderate
and the water table remains at or near the surface most of the year.
Blaney loamy sands with 8-15% slopes (BaB) are mapped in the upland areas on
the eastern side of Puppy Creek. These soils are characteristic of side slopes in
upland areas. The permeability is moderate and the hazard of erosion is severe if the
soil is exposed. A perched water table is frequently present.
rebruaryLuuZ
3
Natural Resources Technical Report
Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
o Lakeland sandy soils with 1-8% slopes (LaB) are mapped in the upland areas on
the western side of Puppy Creek. Typically this soil is found on broad ridges of
uplands and rims of bays. It is excessively drained and the available water capacity is
very low. Included in this map unit are small areas of Autryville and Candor soils.
o Candor sands with 8-15% slopes (CaD) are mapped between the Lakeland and
Blaney soils on the west side of Puppy Creek. These moderately well drained soils
are characteristic of side slopes and uplands. The permeability is moderate and the
available water capacity is very low.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height,
in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have the following site indices:
Johnston soils have a site index of 100 for the following tree species: loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sweetgum (Liquidatnbar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and cottonwood
(Populus deltoides). Water oak (Quercus nigra) has a site index of 90-100.
o Blaney soils have a site index of 76 for loblolly pine and 66 for longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris).
a Lakeland soils have a site index of 75 for loblolly pine and 60 for longleaf pine.
o Candor soils have a site index of 100 for loblolly pine.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical characteristics likely
to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage
classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to
surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (CPF15 sub-basin, HUC 03030004).
Puppy Creek originates about 10 miles (16.2 km) north of the project area. It flows under
Bridge 53 and joins Beaver Creek only 400 feet (60.6 m) downstream. Within another
600 feet (303 m) this larger stream then joins Rockfish Creek. This stream then flows in
an easterly direction past Fayetteville, NC to its confluence with the Cape Fear River
over 15 miles (24.3 km) downstream of the project area.
Within the project area, Puppy Creek is about
narrowing to 20 feet (6.1 m) wide downstream.
vertical, with scouring around the bridge. They
Section 3.1.3 below. Canopy cover is about 50%.
30 feet (9.2 m) wide under the bridge,
The banks are 6 feet (1.8 m) high and
are densely vegetated as described in
4
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
The substrate is sand and silt. Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllunt spicatunt) is rooted in the
bed near the bridge, and large woody debris is abundant in the channel. Flow was
moderate the day of the site visit, and the water was clear and tea-colored.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Puppy Creek
[Index # 18-31-19] is classified as a Class C water body (NCDENR, 2001). Class C
water resources are waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions
on watershed development activities.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-
II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of the
project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are based upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a largely agricultural watershed. Disturbances to the landscape
observed in the immediate vicinity include land cleared for pastures, row crops, and
residential use. Potential threats to stream quality in this area are increased sediment and
nutrient inputs from the pastures and agricultural fields.
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Water Quality Section, of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring
stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have
varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived
from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can
then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. There are no benthic
monitoring stations on Puppy Creek.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All
February 2002
5
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Puppy Creek as of September 2001 (NCDENR 2001).
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic
community. In general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-
site detour is the preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location
results in more severe impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge
replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
v Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
o Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
o Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
o Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
o Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during
the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction
site.
The removal of the existing bridge has the potential to impact surface waters. NCDOT
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be adhered to
during the removal process. Further information concerning bridge demolition is found
in Section 4.1.2.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic resources.
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-
referenced to The Nature Conservancy International Classification of Ecological
Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the Southeastern United States (Weakley et al.,
February 2002
6
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1998), which has recently been adopted as the standard land cover classification by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 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 used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name
only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: human-maintained
areas, a sand ridge woodland, and a floodplain forest. (Fibure 2)s Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
3.1.1 Human-maintained areas
There are three types of human-maintained areas in the project corridor. Active pastures
can be found on both sides of SR 1422 at the southern end of the study corridor. Planted
forage grasses and widely scattered trees such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and water
oak (Quercus nigra) constitute this community. A 10-foot wide maintained roadside runs
the length of the study area on both sides of SR 1422. Bahia grass (Paspalutn notatutn)
dominates this community. Other plant species include sweetgum seedlings
(Liquidatbar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), asters (Aster spp.),
a sunflower (Helianthus spp.), joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Chinese privet (Ligustrutn sinense), and winged sumac (Rhus
copallina). The third maintained area is a powerline right-of-way that runs through the
floodplain forest on the east side of SR 1422. This area is a wetland with seedlings and
saplings of red maple (Acer rubrutn) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), cattail (Typha latifolia), rushes (Juncus spp.), and tearthumb
(Polygonunt sagittatun:).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead
faunal components. American crow (Corvus brachyrynchos), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus migratorius) are common birds that use these
roadside habitats. The area may also be used by the Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), various species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), and southern toad (Bufo terrestris). The animal species that frequent pasture
areas are similar to those found in the maintained roadside community but may also
include eastern bluebird (Sialia sialia), eastern kingbird (Trannus tyrannus), indigo
bunting (Passerina cyanea), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus). Animals utilizing the wet powerline right-of-way will be similar to
those utilizing the disturbed roadside areas, but may also include common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus).
February 2002
7
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
3.1.2 Sand Ridge Woodland
A sand ridge woodland community occupies the northern end of the study corridor on
both sides of SR 1422. Canopy and mid-story trees in this community include blackjack
oak (Quercus marilandica), water oak, post oak (Quercus stellata), highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and turkey oak (Quercus laevis). A thick layer of pine
needles covers the ground. The understory is sparse, consisting of seedlings of the canopy
trees and a few herbs and vines such as muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), spotted
wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans), and
reindeer lichen (Cladonia spp.). This community corresponds to the Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC equivalent
is a H.A.4.N.a.130 Pinus palustris/Quercus spp. Woodland with characteristics of fire
suppression.
Bird species expected in this community include pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), ruby-crowned
kinglet (Regulus calendula), and white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus). Herpetofauna may
include corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata), eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
adatnanteus), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), and pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis). The
mammal species that may be found here include southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), white-tailed deer, and
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus).
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest
A floodplain forest covers the study corridor on both banks of Puppy Creek. It is
bordered by the sand ridge community to the north and by pasture to the south. Most of
this community is jurisdictional wetland. The portion of this community on the south
bank of Puppy Creek and west of SR 1422 is heavily grazed. Species include sweetgum,
water oak, loblolly pine, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica),
American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus
Florida), ti-ti (Cyrilla racetniflora), giant cane (Aruttdinaria gigantea), dog-hobble
(Leucothoe axillaris), muscadine, sweet pepperbush (Clethra abtifolia), false stinging-
nettle (Boehnteria cylindrica), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnantomea), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum), and peatmoss
(Sphagnunt spp.). This community is a marginal example of the Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) community as described in Schafale and Weakley
(1990). The TNC equivalent is the I.C.3.N.b Pinus taeda-Quercus (phellos, nigra,
laurifolia) Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
Bird species expected in this community include barred owl (Strix varia), red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), and yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Herpetofauna that may be encountered here include
February 2002
8
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster erythrogaster), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta scripta), and
southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus). Mammal species such as
Virginia opossum, raccoon, bobcat (Felis rufus), southern short-tailed shrew, and hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) may be found in the floodplain forest.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Puppy Creek is a low-gradient, second-order stream. The bed
material consists mostly of sand with some fine gravel. On the, day of the site visit, the
water was clear with no suspended sediment. The riparian community is mostly
deciduous trees and shrubs, and is described in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.5. Eurasian water-
milfoil (Myriophyllunt spicatuin), a submerged aquatic plant, was rooted in the stream
bed.
According to Keith Ashley, WRC District 4 Fisheries Biologist, Puppy Creek probably
supports populations of the following commonly encountered fish, among others:
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlepis), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus),
spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus), dollar sunfish (Lepotnis marginatus), spotted sucker
(Minytrema melanops), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox alnericanus),
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and various minnow
species. Anadromous fish would probably not be found in Puppy Creek because of its
small size.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction 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 plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project
construction from clearing and paving. Estimated impacts are based on the length of the
alternate and the entire study corridor width. Table I describes the potential impacts to
terrestrial communities by habitat type. Because impacts are based on the entire study
corridor width, the actual loss of habitat will likely be less than the estimate. Insert
Alternate dimensions here., Table 1 sliould be completed following, project design:
February 2002
9
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres (Hectares)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Community Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent

Total Impact
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of
foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal
species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some
reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and
less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction.
The plants and animals that are found in the upland communities are generally common
throughout eastern North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities
in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
33.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a result of
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna
that rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Although aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction
and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized, sediments have the potential
to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading
of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of
pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction
because it is toxic to some aquatic life. Potential adverse effects can be minimized
February 2002
10
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
through the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area and will be impacted by project
construction. The wetlands are present on both sides of Puppy Creek between the sand
ridge and the pasture (Figure 2). The powerline right-of-way wetland is described in
Section 3.1.1 and the floodplain forest wetland is described in Section 3.1.3. Puppy Creek
meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore classified as Waters of the United
States. The channel ranges from 20-30 feet (6.1-9.1 m) wide within the project area.
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States must be
addressed when applying to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) for a permit. A worst-
case scenario of dropping components of the bridge in the water is assumed. Effective
9/20/99, this issue is included in the permit application for bridge reconstruction. The
permit application henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential
impacts to the body of water in the planning document for the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures stipulates that "excavated materials shall not be deposited.... in
rivers, streams, or impoundments," and "the dropping of parts or components of
structures into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical
method of removal. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure
shall be done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum." To meet these
specifications, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
February 2002
11
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters or threatened and/or endangered species, except for the
removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully
coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the Outstanding Resource Water or
T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition
document, dated 9/20/99.
Puppy Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project is a Class C water. It is not known to
provide habitat for aquatic species on the federal list of threatened and endangered
species. Therefore, Cases 3 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 53 over
Puppy Creek.
Insert information regarding superstructure here.
The stream bed in the project area is sand and silt. Therefore, conditions in.the stream
raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is recommended.
4.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Add information regarding_ wetland "impacts here. Project construction cannot be
accomplished without infringing on the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts
fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ. Add information regarding
stream imRgcts here.
4.1.4 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. Permits
and certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to
construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in
part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
February 2002
12
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
o the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions that neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment; and
® the Office of the Chief Engineer 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 or waiver thereof, from
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to issuance of the
NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results in a discharge into
Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the USAGE.
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit, mitigation for
impacts to surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with
the Division of Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)] "Fill or
alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and
fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet of streams may require compensatory
mitigation." If wetland impacts are less than an acre, wetland mitigation will not be
required. Add information regarding stream and wetland impacts here. If the final
length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet (45.6 m), compensatory mitigation
may be required.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces
or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
for Graham County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists 5 species under federal protection for Hoke County as of September
2001 (USFWS 2001). These species are listed in Table 2.
February 2002
13
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Hoke County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' Satyr Neonym ha ntitchellii francisci E
Vascular Plants
American chaffseed Schwalbea antericana E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Rough-leaved loosetrife L simachia as erulaefolia E
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T S/A Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species
follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 7.4 to 8.5 inches (18 to 20
cm) long with a wingspan of 14 to 15 inches (35 to 38 cm). The back and top of the head
are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows
give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side.
Males and females look alike except males have a small red streak above the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live in a
group termed a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than one
breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers are
usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers assist
in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new cavities, and defending the clan's area
from other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those that are infected with
a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees
called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than 12, but it is
used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 450
m (1,500 ft) wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provide
suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly used, but other species of
southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or stands that have a dense
February 2002
14
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine
hardwood stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches (25
cm) or larger in diameter. The woodpeckers diet consists mainly of insects that include
ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, and caterpillars.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
There are no mature pine stands in the project area that would serve as either nesting or
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No occurrences of the red-cockaded
woodpecker within the project vicinity were found in the NHP files. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Neonympha ntitchellii francisci (Saint Francis' Satyr) Endangered
Family: Nymphalidae
Listed: 1992
The Saint Francis' Satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with conspicuous "eye spots" on
the lower surfaces of both the fore and hind wings. The spots are usually round to oval in
shape and have a dark maroon-brown center that contain lighter silvery spots within
them. The border of these eyespots is straw yellow with an outermost band of dark
brown. Two bright orange bands along the posterior wing margins and two slightly
darker orange-brown bands across the center of each wing further accentuate the spots.
This species prefers areas of open wet meadows, interspersed with woody stems, and
dominated by a high diversity of sedges (Carex sp.) and other wetland graminoids. Other
wetland types may be suitable but specific habitat requirements for this species are poorly
understood. It appears beavers and frequent fires may play an important role in habitat
development and maintenance. This species has also been observed in pitcher plant
(Sarracenia (lava) swales, with cane (Arundinaria techta), and with rare plants such as
rough-leaved loosestrifes (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and pocosin lily (Lilium iridollai).
The Saint Francis' Satyr is one of the most rare and least known American butterflies. It
is currently known to exist only on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County. This is a disjunct
population over 400 miles (643.6 km) south of the nearest historic locality of its nominate
species (N. in. ntitchellh).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
There are no wet areas within the project area that are dominated by a diversity of sedges
or wetland graminoids. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this
endangered species within the project area. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
proposed project will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr.
February 2002
15
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
American chaffseed (Sch)valbea americana)
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: 1992
Endangered
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems. The large,
purplish-yellow tubular flowers are borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the
uppermost, reduced leaves. The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless,
0.78 to 1.9 inches (2 to 5 cm long), and entire. The entire plant is densely but minutely
hairy throughout, including the flowers. Flowering occurs from April to June, with the
fruits maturing in early summer.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to
dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and
other open grass/sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependant upon factors such as fire,
mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the open to partly open conditions that it
requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the
coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent, naturally
occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities. The American chaffseed is
hemiparasitic (partially dependant upon another plant as host). However, it is not host-
specific, requiring a specialized host, and can use a variety of other plant species as a
host.
Fifty populations of American chaffseed are known from New Jersey, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida. Only one population is known in North Carolina. Although never a
common species, the population has significantly declined because of loss of habitat to
development or fire suppression.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No habitat for American chaffseed fitting the above descriptions exists within the project
area. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this endangered species
within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will
have no effect on the American chaffseed.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Endangered
Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy colonial shrub with erect
stems, which are 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in height. The shrub's compound leaves are
narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their
bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white
and are 4- to 5-parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits
are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The
16
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is produced in October and
November.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has
provided an open area. Most of the plant's remaining populations are on highway rights-
of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Other populations
are in areas with periodic fires, or on sites undergoing natural succession. One population
is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay. Currently, the plant survives
in the following North Carolina Counties: Richmond; Hoke, Scotland, Franklin, Davie,
Robeson, and Wake.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the project area in the maintained
roadside and sand ridge communities. However, a search conducted by Earth Tech
biologists found no occurrences of this endangered species. A search of the NHP
database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it
may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 12 to 24
inches (30 to 60 cm) in height. Leaves are usually sessile, occurring in whorls of 3 or 4.
They are broadest at the base [0.3 to 0.8 inches (0.8 to 2 cm) wide], entire, and have three
prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on a loose, terminal raceme.
The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins near the apex and with dots
or steaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and seeds are formed by
August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in the fall because of the
reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns.
The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between longleaf
pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur
and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is the main
factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is associated
with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine flatwoods, pine
savannah, streamhead pocosin, and sandhill seep.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
None of the six natural community types with which the rough-leaved loosestrife is
usually associated occur in the project area. A search of the NHP database showed no
occurrences of this endangered plant in the project vicinity. In addition, Earth Tech
biologists conducted a search for the plant within the project area and found no
February 2002
17
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
occurrences. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect
on the rough-leaved loosestrife.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes FSC species
listed for Hoke County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Hoke County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC NO
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito Sc YES
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC YES
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR YES
Vascular Plants
Alabama beaksedge Rynchospora crinipes E YES
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T NO
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E NO
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii C NO
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra C NO
Carolina grass-of-pamassus Parnassia caroliniana E NO
Confcrva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides C NO
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana E NO
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T NO
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii E YES
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C NO
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum T-SC NO
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia C NO
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridolae T NO
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T YES
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. breviflora E NO
Savanna cowbane Ox3polis ternata NO
February 2002
18
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata E NO
Spring-flowered goldenrod Solidago verna T NO
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC NO
White wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC NO
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii NO
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1999; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1999
Key: T = Threatened, E = Endangered, SC = Special Concern, C = Candidate, SR = Significantly Rare
*=Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**=Obscure record. The date and/or location of observation are uncertain.
Savanna cowbane and wavyleaf wild quinine both appear on the USFWS website (last
updated March 22, 2001 and last viewed on September 17, 2001) listing protected species
in Hoke County, however these species do not appear on the more recently updated (July
2001) NC NHP website. John Finnegan, Data Systems Manager for the NC NHP, stated
that the organization no longer tracks savanna cowbane because it is more abundant than
once thought. Furthermore, wavyleaf wild quinine has been lumped with another species
(Parthenium integrifolium var. mabryanum), which is also fairly common and is not
tracked by the NC NHP.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, and none are recorded at NHP as
occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the project area.
February 2002
19
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. "The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds,
Seventh Edition." http://www.aou.org/aou/birdlist.html (24 September 2001).
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1998. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000.
Cape Fear River Basin-Wide Water Quality Plan. Environmental Sciences Branch, Water
Quality Section, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Permits Database on Mainframe Computer." Water Quality Section,
Division of Water Quality (14 September 2001).
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (25 June 2001).
North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State
Demographics." http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog/ (14 September 2001).
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, North Carolina.
February 2002
20
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Thorpe, James H. and Alan P. Covich. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North
American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984. Soil Survey of
Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (22 March 2001 and August 21, 2001).
Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Pyne and others, compilers. 1998.
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
Southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office,
Southern Conservation Science Department: Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
February 2002
21
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
B-4152
NCDOT
Investigator. Almon & Ingram
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Date: 7/23/2001
County: Hoke
State: NCDOT
Community ID: Forested wetland
TransectID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Li uidambar s raci ua Canopy FAC+ Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
Quercus ni ra Cano FAC Boehmeria lindrica Herb FACW+
Taxodium distiehum Canopy OBL Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
N ssa lvatica var bi ora Canopy OBL Osmunda eimn omea Herb FACW+
C rilla racemi ora Subeam FACW Osmunda re alis Herb OBL
Cornus orida Subcam FACU
Ilex o aca Subcam FAC-
Leucothoe axillans Shrub FACW
Clethra alni olia Shrub FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 86
Remarks:
LIVTnnr nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Community ID: Forested wetland
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
cnrr.C
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johnston

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic humaquept Drainage Class: poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 10YR 22 sandy loam, organic matter, many fuze roots
1-6 10YR 311 silt loam, few roots
6-18+ 10YR 311 silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Suliidic Odor
x Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
X High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
B4152 SR 1422 over Puppy Creek Date: 712312001
NCDOT County: Hoke
Almon & Ingram State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID:
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Pinus raeda Canopy FAC
Acer rubrum Canopy FAC
Quercus nigra Canopy FAC
Hamamelis vir iniana Subcan. FACU
Ilex o aca Subcan. FAC-
Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
Smilax rorundi olia Vine FAC

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 71
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Blaney loamy sand

Taxonomy Subgroup: Arenic Hapludult Drainage Class: well drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfdie Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rcmarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wctland?
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
(Remarks:
ri
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1422, Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek
Hoke County
TIP No. B-4152
State Project No. 8.2530401
FAP No. BRZ-1422(5)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
C
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1422, Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek
Hoke County
TIP No. B-4152
State Project No. 8.2530401
FAP No. BRZ-1422(5)
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Issued by:
Earth Tech, Inc.
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Earth Tech Project No. 46164
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION .................................................................................................................. PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions .............................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators ...................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ..................................................................................... 3
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ............................................4
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification .......................................................................5
2.3.3 Water Quality .........................................................................................5
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics .............................................5
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report ..................................................5
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge Permits .................................................5
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..............................................................................................6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................... ..7
3.1.1 Human-maintained areas ...................................................................... ..7
3.1.2 Sand Ridge Woodland .......................................................................... ..8
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest .................................................................................. ..8
3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... .. 9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... ..9
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ....................................................................... ..9
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................... 10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..............................................................................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................. 11
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................11
4.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .........................................................12
4.1.4 Permits ..................................................................................................12
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ..................................................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ..............................................................................13
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection ........................................................13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status .......................................18
5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................20
February 2002
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities ......................................10
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Hoke County ............................................14
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Hoke County .....................................................18
FIGURES (to, 4e added later)
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ................. .....................:......... ..........................:.............. 2
Figure 2 - Natural Communities ..
................... .
NOTE: Highlighted text denotes items not included in this draft that will be added later
by NCDOT personnel after alignments are developed.
February 2002
ii
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) preliminary to the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of the preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of the preliminary design
concepts. It may become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should
design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge Number 53 on SR 1422
(Phillippi Church Road), which spans Puppy Creek. The project is located in eastern
Hoke County about 6 miles (9.72 km) east of Raeford, NC (Figure 1)
Alternate 1
Insert Alternate information here:
Alternate 2
Insert Alternate information here.
1.2 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Parkton, 1982)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Parkton, 1995)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200)
• Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties (Soil Conservation Service, 1984)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1996)
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
February 2002
1
Natural Resources Technical Report
Creek, Hoke County,. North Carolina
list of protected and candidate species (page last updated March 22, 2001; last accessed
September 14, 2001), posted on the World Wide Web by the Ecological Services branch
of the USFWS office in North Carolina. Information concerning species under state
protection was obtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats. NHP
files were reviewed (June 29, 2001) for documented sightings of species on state or
federal lists and locations of significant natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth Tech
biologists on July 23, 2001. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat assessment
was performed within the project area of Puppy Creek. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows). Terrestrial community classifications generally
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows
Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant et al.
(1998), the American Ornithologists' Union (2001), Thorpe and Covich (1991), and
Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of
the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE,
1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used for describing the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Study corridor" and "project area" denote an area with
a width of approximately 200 feet (60.6 m) as delineated on materials provided by
NCDOT. The "project vicinity" is an area extending 1 mile (1.6 km) on all sides of the
project area, and "project region" is an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a
7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map (about 61.8 sq miles or 163.3 sq km) with the project
study area occupying the central location. When referring to stream banks, "left bank"
and "right bank" are relative to an observer facing downstream.
February 2002
2
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators
Investigator: Jane Almon
Education M.S. Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience Staff Biologist, Earth Tech- >2 years
Expertise Natural resources surveys, wetland restoration
Investigator: Daniel Ingram
Education B.S., Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience Staff Biologist, Earth Tech- >1 year
Expertise Wetland delineation, Wetland mitigation
2.0 PHYSICAL RI+JSOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed with respect to
possible environmental concerns.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The project area lies in the eastern portion of North Carolina within the Sandhills
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 140 feet
(42.6 m) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The topography of the project
vicinity is generally flat.
The proposed project is in a rural area in Hoke County approximately 6 miles (9.72 km)
east of Raeford, NC. Hoke County's major economic resources are agriculture, military-
related employment, and manufacturing. The population of Hoke County in 2000 was
33,646 (North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning and Management 2001).
2.2 Soils
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of Cumberland
and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (USDA 1984). The map units in the project area are
Johnston loam, Blaney loamy sand with 8-15% slopes, Lakeland sand with 1-8% slopes,
and Candor sand with 8-15% slopes. The Johnston soils are classified as hydric by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
• Johnston soils (JT) are mapped along the banks of Puppy Creek within the project
area. These soils are nearly level and poorly drained. They are typical of flood plain
areas in the Coastal Plain, and are frequently flooded. The permeability is moderate
and the water table remains at or near the surface most of the year.
• Blaney loamy sands with 8-15% slopes (BaB) are mapped in the upland areas on
the eastern side of Puppy Creek. These soils are characteristic of side slopes in
upland areas. The permeability is moderate and the hazard of erosion is severe if the
soil is exposed. A perched water table is frequently present.
February 2002
3
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
• Lakeland sandy soils with 1-8% slopes (LaB) are mapped in the upland areas on
the western side of Puppy Creek. Typically this soil is found on broad ridges of
uplands and rims of bays. It is excessively drained and the available water capacity is
very low. Included in this map unit are small areas of Autryville and Candor soils.
• Candor sands with 8-15% slopes (CaD) are mapped between the Lakeland and
Blaney soils on the west side of Puppy Creek. These moderately well drained soils
are characteristic of side slopes and uplands. The permeability is moderate and the
available water capacity is very low.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height,
in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have the following site indices:
• Johnston soils have a site index of 100 for the following tree species: loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sweet-urn (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and cottonwood
(Populus deltoides). Water oak (Quercus nigra) has a site index of 90-100.
• Blaney soils have a site index of 76 for loblolly pine and 66 for longleaf pine (Pintos
palustris).
• Lakeland soils have a site index of 75 for loblolly pine and 60 for longleaf pine.
• Candor soils have a site index of 100 for loblolly pine.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical characteristics likely
to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage
classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to
surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (CPF15 sub-basin, HUC 03030004).
Puppy Creek originates about 10 miles (16.2 km) north of the project area. It flows under
Bridge 53 and joins Beaver Creek only 400 feet (60.6 m) downstream. Within another
600 feet (303 m) this larger stream then joins Rockfish Creek. This stream then flows in
an easterly direction past Fayetteville, NC to its confluence with the Cape Fear River
over 15 miles (24.3 km) downstream of the project area.
Within the project area, Puppy Creek is about 30 feet (9.2 m) wide under the bridge,
narrowing to 20 feet (6.1 m) wide downstream. The banks are 6 feet (1.8 m) high and
vertical, with scouring around the bridge. They are densely vegetated as described in
Section 3.1.3 below. Canopy cover is about 50%.
February 2002
4
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
The substrate is sand and silt. Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is rooted in the
bed near the bridge, and large woody debris is abundant in the channel. Flow was
moderate the day of the site visit, and the water was clear and tea-colored.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Puppy Creek
[Index # 18-31-19] is classified as a Class C water body (NCDENR, 2001). Class C
water resources are waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions
on watershed development activities.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-
II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of the
project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are based upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a largely agricultural watershed. Disturbances to the landscape
observed in the immediate vicinity include land cleared for pastures, row crops, and
residential use. Potential threats to stream quality in this area are increased sediment and
nutrient inputs from the pastures and agricultural fields.
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Water Quality Section, of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring
stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have
varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived
from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can
then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. There are no benthic
monitoring stations on Puppy Creek.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All
February 2002
5
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Puppy Creek as of September 2001 (NCDENR 2001).
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic
community. In general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-
site detour is the preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location
results in more severe impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge
replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during
the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction
site.
The removal of the existing bridge has the potential to impact surface waters. NCDOT
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be adhered to
during the removal process. Further information concerning bridge demolition is found
in Section 4.1.2.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic resources.
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-
referenced to The Nature Conservancy International Classification of Ecological
Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the Southeastern United States (Weakley et al.,
February 2002
6
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
1998), which has recently been adopted as the standard land cover classification by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 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 used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name
only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: human-maintained
areas, a sand ridge woodland, and a floodplain forest. (Figure 2) Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
3.1.1 Human-maintained areas
There are three types of human-maintained areas in the project corridor. Active pastures
can be found on both sides of SR 1422 at the southern end of the study corridor. Planted
forage grasses and widely scattered trees such as loblolly pine (Pintts taeda) and water
oak (Quercus nigra) constitute this community. A 10-foot wide maintained roadside runs
the length of the study area on both sides of SR 1422. Bahia grass (Paspalttnt notattan)
dominates this community. Other plant species include sweetgum seedlings
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), asters (Aster spp.),
a sunflower (Helianthus spp.), joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and winged sumac (Rhus
copallina). The third maintained area is a powerline right-of-way that runs through the
floodplain forest on the east side of SR 1422. This area is a wetland with seedlings and
saplings of red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), cattail (Typha latifolia), rushes (Junccts spp.), and tearthumb
(Polygonum sagittatum).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead
faunal components. American crow (Corvus brachyrynchos), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus tnigratorius) are common birds that use these
roadside habitats. The area may also be used by the Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), various species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), eastern garter snake (Thanutophis
sirtalis), and southern toad (Bufo terrestris). The animal species that frequent pasture
areas are similar to those found in the maintained roadside community but may also
include eastern bluebird (Sialia sialia), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), indigo
bunting (Passerina cyanea), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiantts) and meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus). Animals utilizing the wet powerline right-of-way will be similar to
those utilizing the disturbed roadside areas, but may also include common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus).
February 2002
7
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
3.1.2 Sand Ridge Woodland
A sand ridge woodland community occupies the northern end of the study corridor on
both sides of SR 1422. Canopy and mid-story trees in this community include blackjack
oak (Quercus marilandica), water oak, post oak (Quercus stellata), highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
sassafras (Sassafras albidutn), and turkey oak (Quercus laevis). A thick layer of pine
needles covers the ground. The understory is sparse, consisting of seedlings of the canopy
trees and a few herbs and vines such as muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), spotted
wintergreen (Chintaphila maculata), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans), and
reindeer lichen (Cladonia spp.). This community corresponds to the Pine/Scrub Oak
Sandhill community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC equivalent
is a H.A.4.N.a.130 Pinus palustris/Quercus spp. Woodland with characteristics of fire
suppression.
Bird species expected in this community include pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), ruby-crowned
kinglet (Regulus calendula), and white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus). Herpetofauna may
include corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata), eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
adamanteus), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), and pine woods treefrog (Hyla felnoralis). The
mammal species that may be found here include southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), white-tailed deer, and
white-footed mouse (Perotnyscus leucopus).
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest
A floodplain forest covers the study corridor on both banks of Puppy Creek. It is
bordered by the sand ridge community to the north and by pasture to the south. Most of
this community is jurisdictional wetland. The portion of this community on the south
bank of Puppy Creek and west of SR.1422 is heavily grazed. Species include sweetgum,
water oak, loblolly pine, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica),
American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple (Ater rubrum), flowering dogwood (Conius
Florida), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), dog-hobble
(Leucothoe axillaris), muscadine, sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), false stinging-
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), netted chain-fern (Woodtivardia areolata), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), downy arrowwood (Vibunium rafinesquianum), and peatmoss
(Sphagnum spp.). This community is a marginal example of the Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) community as described in Schafale and Weakley
(1990). The TNC equivalent is the I.C.3.N.b Pinus taeda-Quercus (phellos, nigra,
laurifolia) Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
Bird species expected in this community include barred owl (Strix varia), red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), and yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus ainericanus). Herpetofauna that may be encountered here include
February 2002
8
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster erythrogaster), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta scripta), and
southern dusky salamander (Destnognathus auriculatus). Mammal species such as
Virginia opossum, raccoon, bobcat (Fells rufius), southern short-tailed shrew, and hispid
cotton rat (Sigtnodon hispidus) may be found in the floodplain forest.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Puppy Creek is a low-gradient, second-order stream. The bed
material consists mostly of sand with some fine gravel. On the. day of the site visit, the
water was clear with no suspended sediment. The riparian community is mostly
deciduous trees and shrubs, and is described in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.5. Eurasian water-
milfoil (Myriophyllttin spicatum), a submerged aquatic plant, was rooted in the stream
bed.
According to Keith Ashley, WRC District 4 Fisheries Biologist, Puppy Creek probably
supports populations of the following commonly encountered fish, among others:
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlepis), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus),
spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus), dollar sunfish (Lepomis ntarginatus), spotted sucker
(Minytrema inelanops), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus),
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and various minnow
species. Anadromous fish would probably not be found in Puppy Creek because of its
small size.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction 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 plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project
construction from clearing and paving. Estimated impacts are based on the length of the
alternate and the entire study corridor width. Table 1 describes the potential impacts to
terrestrial communities by habitat type. Because impacts are based on the entire study
corridor width, the actual loss of habitat will likely be less than the estimate. Insert
Alternate dimensions here. Table 1 should be completed following project design.
February 2002
9
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres (Hectares)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Community Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent

Total Impact
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of
foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal
species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some
reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and
less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction.
The plants and animals that are found in the upland communities are generally common
throughout eastern North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities
in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a result of
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna
that rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Although aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction
and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized, sediments have the potential
to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading
of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of
pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction
because it is toxic to some aquatic life. Potential adverse effects can be minimized
February 2002
10
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
through the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area and will be impacted by project
construction. The wetlands are present on both sides of Puppy Creek between the sand
ridge and the pasture (Figure 2). The powerline right-of-way wetland is described in
Section 3.1.1 and the floodplain forest wetland is described in Section 3.1.3. Puppy Creek
meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore classified as Waters of the United
States. The channel ranges from 20-30 feet (6.1-9.1 m) wide within the project area.
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States must be
addressed when applying to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) for a permit. A worst-
case scenario of dropping components of the bridge in the water is assumed. Effective
9/20/99, this issue is included in the permit application for bridge reconstruction. The
permit application henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential
impacts to the body of water in the planning document for the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures stipulates that "excavated materials shall not be deposited.... in
rivers, streams, or impoundments," and "the dropping of parts or components of
structures into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical
method of removal. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure
shall be done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum." To meet these
specifications, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
February 2002
11
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters or threatened and/or endangered species, except for the
removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully
coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the Outstanding Resource Water or
T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition
document, dated 9/20/99.
Puppy Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project is a Class C water. It is not known to
provide habitat for aquatic species on the federal list of threatened and endangered
species. Therefore, Cases 3 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 53 over
Puppy Creek.
Insert information. regarding superstructure here.
The stream bed in the project area is sand and silt. Therefore, conditions in the stream
raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is recommended.
4.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Add information regarding wetland impacts here. Project construction cannot be
accomplished without infringing on the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts
fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ. Add information regarding
stream impacts here.
4.1.4 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. Permits
and certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to
construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in
part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
February 2002
12
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions that neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment; and
the Office of the Chief Engineer 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 or waiver thereof, from
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to issuance of the
NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results in a discharge into
Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the USACE.
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit, mitigation for
impacts to surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with
the Division of Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)] "Fill or
alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and
fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet of streams may require compensatory
mitigation." If wetland impacts are less than an acre, wetland mitigation will not be
required. Add information regarding stream and wetland impacts here. If the final
length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet (45.6 m), compensatory mitigation
may be required.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces
or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
for Graham County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists 5 species under federal protection for Hoke County as of September
2001 (USFWS 2001). These species are listed in Table 2.
February 2002
13
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Hoke County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' Satyr Neonym ha mitchellii francisci E
Vascular Plants
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Rough-leaved loosetrife Lysimachia as erttlaefolia E
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T S/A Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species
follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 7.4 to 8.5 inches (18 to 20
cm) long with a wingspan of 14 to 15 inches (35 to 38 cm). The back and top of the head
are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows
give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side.
Males and females look alike except males have a small red streak above the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live in a
group termed a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than one
breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers are
usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers assist
in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new cavities, and defending the clan's area
from other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those that are infected with
a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees
called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than 12, but it is
used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 450
m (1,500 ft) wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provide
suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly used, but other species of
southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or stands that have a dense
February 2002
14
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine
hardwood stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches (25
cm) or larger in diameter. The woodpeckers diet consists mainly of insects that include
ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, and caterpillars.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
There are no mature pine stands in the project area that would serve as either nesting or
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No occurrences of the red-cockaded
woodpecker within the project vicinity were found in the NHP files. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Neonympha initch ellii francisci (Saint Francis' Satyr) Endangered
Family: Nymphalidae
Listed: 1992
The Saint Francis' Satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with conspicuous "eye spots" on
the lower surfaces of both the fore and hind wings. The spots are usually round to oval in
shape and have a dark maroon-brown center that contain lighter silvery spots within
them. The border of these eyespots is straw yellow with an outermost band of dark
brown. Two bright orange bands along the posterior wing margins and two slightly
darker orange-brown bands across the center of each wing further accentuate the spots.
This species prefers areas of open wet meadows, interspersed with woody stems, and
dominated by a high diversity of sedges (Carex sp.) and other wetland graminoids. Other
wetland types may be suitable but specific habitat requirements for this species are poorly
understood. It appears beavers and frequent fires may play an important role in habitat
development and maintenance. This species has also been observed in pitcher plant
(Sarracenia (lava) swales, with cane (Arttndinaria techta), and with rare plants such as
rough-leaved loosestrifes (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and pocosin lily (Lilium iridollai).
The Saint Francis' Satyr is one of the most rare and least known American butterflies. It
is currently known to exist only on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County. This is a disjunct
population over 400 miles (643.6 km) south of the nearest historic locality of its nominate
species (N. in. mitchellii).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
There are no wet areas within the project area that are dominated by a diversity of sedges
or wetland graminoids. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this
endangered species within the project area. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
proposed project will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr.
February 2002
15
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: 1992
Endangered
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems. The large,
purplish-yellow tubular flowers are borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the
uppermost, reduced leaves. The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless,
0.78 to 1.9 inches (2 to 5 cm long), and entire. The entire plant is densely but minutely
hairy throughout, including the flowers. Flowering occurs from April to June, with the
fruits maturing in early summer.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to
dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and
other open grass/sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependant upon factors such as fire,
mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the open to partly open conditions that it
requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the
coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent, naturally
occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities. The American chaffseed is
hemiparasitic (partially dependant upon another plant as host). However, it is not host-
specific, requiring a specialized host, and can use a variety of other plant species as a
host.
Fifty populations of American chaffseed are known from New Jersey, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida. Only one population is known in North Carolina. Although never a
common species, the population has significantly declined because of loss of habitat to
development or fire suppression.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No habitat for American chaffseed fitting the above descriptions exists within the project
area. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this endangered species
within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will
have no effect on the American chaffseed.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Endangered
Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy colonial shrub with erect
stems, which are 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in height. The shrub's compound leaves are
narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their
bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white
and are 4- to 5-parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits
are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The
February 2002
16
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is produced in October and
November.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has
provided an open area. Most of the plant's remaining populations are on highway rights-
of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Other populations
are in areas with periodic fires, or on sites undergoing natural succession. One population
is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay. Currently, the plant survives
in the following North Carolina Counties: Richmond; Hoke, Scotland, Franklin, Davie,
Robeson, and Wake.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the project area in the maintained
roadside and sand ridge communities. However, a search conducted by Earth Tech
biologists found no occurrences of this endangered species. A search of the NHP
database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it
may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac.
Lysituachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 12 to 24
inches (30 to 60 cm) in height. Leaves are usually sessile, occurring in whorls of 3 or 4.
They are broadest at the base [0.3 to 0.8 inches (0.8 to 2 cm) wide], entire, and have three
prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on a loose, terminal raceme.
The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins near the apex and with dots
or steaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and seeds are formed by
August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in the fall because of the
reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns.
The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between longleaf
pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur
and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is the main
factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is associated
with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine flatwoods, pine
savannah, streamhead pocosin, and sandhill seep.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
None of the six natural community types with which the rough-leaved loosestrife is
usually associated occur in the project area. A search of the NHP database showed no
occurrences of this endangered plant in the project vicinity. In addition, Earth Tech
biologists conducted a search for the plant within the project area and found no
February 2002
17
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
occurrences. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect
on the rough-leaved loosestrife.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes FSC species
listed for Hoke County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Hoke County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC NO
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC YES
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC YES
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR YES
Vascular Plants
Alabama beaksedge Rynchospora crinipes E YES
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T NO
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E NO
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii C NO
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra C NO
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E NO
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides C NO
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana E NO
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T NO
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii E YES
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C NO
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum T-SC NO
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia C NO
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridolae T NO
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T YES
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. breviflora E NO
Savanna cowbane Ox)polis ternata NO
February 2002
18
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata E NO
Spring-flowered goldenrod Solidago verna T NO
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC NO
White wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC NO
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii NO
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1999; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1999
Key: T = Threatened, E = Endangered, SC = Special Concern, C = Candidate, SR = Significantly Rare
*=Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**=Obscure record. The date and/or location of observation are uncertain.
Savanna cowbane and wavyleaf wild quinine both appear on the USFWS website (last
updated March 22, 2001 and last viewed on September 17, 2001) listing protected species
in Hoke County, however these species do not appear on the more recently updated (July
2001) NC NHP website. John Finnegan, Data Systems Manager for the NC NHP, stated
that the organization no longer tracks savanna cowbane because it is more abundant than
once thought. Furthermore, wavyleaf wild quinine has been lumped with another species
(Partheniutn integrifolium var. mabryanum), which is also fairly common and is not
tracked by the NC NHP.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, and none are recorded at NHP as
occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the project area.
February 2002
19
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. "The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds,
Seventh Edition." http://www.aou.org/aoulbirdlist.html (24 September 2001).
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1998. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000.
Cape Fear River Basin-Wide Water Quality Plan. Environmental Sciences Branch, Water
Quality Section, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Permits Database on Mainframe Computer." Water Quality Section,
Division of Water Quality (14 September 2001).
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (25 June 2001).
North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State
Demographics." http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog/(14 September 2001).
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, North Carolina.
February 2002
20
Natural Resources Technical Report
Puppy Creek, Hoke County, North Carolina
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Thorpe, James H. and Alan P. Covich. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North
American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984. Soil Survey of
Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (22 March 2001 and August 21, 2001).
Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Pyne and others, compilers. 1998.
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
Southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office,
Southern Conservation Science Department: Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
February 2002
21
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator.
B-4152
NCDOT
Almon & Ingram
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No
Yes No x
Yes No x
Date: 7/232001
County: Hoke
State: NCDOT
Community ID: Forested wetland
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Li uidambar s raci ua Canopy FAC+ Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
Quercus ni ra Canopy FAC Boehmeria lindrica Herb FACW+
Taxodium distichum Canopy OBL Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
N ssa s lvatica var bi ora Cano OBL Osmunda cinnamomea Herb FACW+
C rilla racemf ora Subcan. FACW Osmunda re alts Herb OBL
Cornus orida Subcan. FA CU
11ex o aca Subcan. FAC-
Leucothoe axillaris Shrub FACW
Clethra alni olia Shrub FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 86
Remarks:
I
I
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Community ID: Forested wetland
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johnston

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumttlic humaquept Drainage Class: poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
X. No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 10YR 2/2 sandy loam, organic matter, many fine roots
1-6 10YR 311 silt loam, few roots
6-18+ 10YR 311 silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
x Aquic Moisture Regime
X Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
x High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
x Yes No
x Yes No
x Yes No
x Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1957 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B4152 SR 1422 over Puppy Creek Date: 712312001
Applicant/Owner. NCDOT County: Hoke
Investigator: Almon & Ingram State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No z Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID:
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Pinus taeda Cana FAC
Acer rubrum Canopy FAC
Quercus nigra Canopy FAC
Hamamelis vir iniana Subcan. FACU
Iles o aca Subcan. FAC-
Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
Smilax rotundf olia Vine FAC

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 71
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Blaney loamy sand

Taxonomy Subgroup: Arenic Hapludult Drainage Class: well drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidie Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
Remarks:
x' ` ? r,.
?. 1? E.
,?? ?? ?? •
uk ? ? ? , e ? ? ? ? ? ,
' : ? ??? .
?i
. .? ?? ?,?
,? :. ?;? ?
`? {' '.?
y ,i
N ? I ?• i}? l ,! •,
t ?p/ ,??,
}wI?.?.
iG9:!
} i,
;?
?'
?`. : ?
,5A ?..
I?
1 02-17-'05 09 ; 45 FEW-DE11B EEP
9197152001
1 . I r??T
1
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office box IS90
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
T-245 P06 U-503
B-4152, Bridge Number 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422, Hoke
County; Cape Fear River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030004);
Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 0.04 acre of unavoidable riverine wetland
impacts associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the IvIemorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Envirorunent and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment i. details how nop-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE, In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the NIOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP intends to provide compensatory riverine wetland.and stream mitigation up to a
i,,L,.'1,t47Y"Li ?t,.. ?:'d .?c.L? ??,?-,??.?%.... _ r.. T . c ?: , •?'i?V ...4s.... NCpiE=NR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, HC 27699-1652 / 919-715.0416 / www.memlet
FEe-17-2005 THU 09:12 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 6
PROGRAM
February 14, 200a
02-17-'05 09:45 FROM-DE11H EEP 9197152001 T-245 P07 U-503
l ratio in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Mitigation sites
currently containing surplus mitigation assets consists of, but not inclusive of, the Little
River and Jumping Run Creek Mitigation Sites.
If you have any questions or need additional infonnation, please contact Ms, Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
?r
J
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: 13-4152
FEB-17-2005 THU 09:13 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 7
'fir. V.V(
.X .,?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 10, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
912@20W20
DEC) 5 2004
4£11ANDENR - WATER QUALITY
DS Af?D STOrZI.i?ATER GrZIVtCH
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Hoke County. Replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422.
State Project No 8.2530401. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1422(5). TIP No. B-
4152. NCDOT Division 8.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 53 over Puppy
Creek on SR 1422 in Hoke County. The bridge will be replaced in-place utilizing an offsite
detour during construction. The proposed right-of-way (ROW) width for the project is 100 ft.
RESOURCES UNDER THE.IURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. When submitted, a copy of the permit
application will be at http://www.ncdot.orWplanning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.htmi. The
remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by
the EEP program. We estimate that 0.04 acre of wetlands will be impacted.
The project is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in Hoke County in the
Cape Fear River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030004.
• The wetland impacts total 0.04 acre ofriverine wetlands. We propose to provide
compensatory mitigation for the wetland impacts by using; the EEP for the 0.04 acre of
impacts.
Please send the letter ofconfinnation to Richard Spencer (USAGE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Field Office (Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890). Mr. Spencer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let
date for the project is September 20, 2005 for which the let review date is July 26, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be
addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Matt Haney at (919)
715-1428
Sincerely,
Gre(:W orp e,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Jennifer Parish, Roadside Environmental
Mr. T. Johnson, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Laurie Smith, Funds Administration Section
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP

E
Ecosystem.
PROGRAM
February 14, 2005
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
o?9%
FE6 2 % 1*5
'14NI C,?E ewv
B-4152, Bridge Number 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422, Hoke
County; Cape Fear River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030004);
Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 0.04 acre of unavoidable riverine wetland
impacts associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment I details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP intends to provide compensatory riverine wetland and stream mitigation up to a
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 165fMail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Mitigation sites
currently containing surplus mitigation assets consists of, but not inclusive of, the Little
River and Jumping Run Creek Mitigation Sites.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
v
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4152

F
A
j Ecosystem
PROGRAM
February 14, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4152, Bridge Number 53 over Puppy Creek on SR 1422, Hoke
County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on
the information supplied by you in a letter dated December 10, 2004, the impacts are
located in CU 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin in the Southern Inner Coastal Plain
(SICP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.04 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
A .
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP agrees to accept this project and will provide compensatory riverine wetland and
stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River
Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE-Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4152