20030156 Ver 1_Complete File_20030213

d?aSWEo
yaoy
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 12, 2003
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 3
Dear Sir:
03015
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FEB 1 3 2U,
qq „`L X
Subject: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the replacement of Bridge No. 67
over the Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County. Federal Project
No. BRZ-903(2), State Project No. 8.1281301, T.I.P. No. B-3699:
Division 3.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 67 over Great Coharie Creek (DWQ Index # 18-68-1) a
Division of Water Quality Class "C Sw" Waters of the State.
The project involves replacing the current bridge with a new bridge at the existing
location, approximately 200 feet (ft) [61 meters (m)] long cored slab bridge with a 30-
foot (9.1 m) clear roadway. The grade of the roadway over the new bridge will be
approximately the same as the current bridge. The approaches to the bridge will have a
pavement width of 24 ft (7.2 m) with 8-foot (2.4 m) grassed shoulders. Traffic will be
detoured off-site along surrounding roads during construction. Please find the enclosed
project site map, permit drawings, PCN form, Categorical Exclusion document (CE) and
roadway plans.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Bridge No. 67 over Great Coharie Creek will be approximately 200-foot cored
slab bridge. The construction of the bridge will require the use of 2 rock causeways
consisting of Class II riprap to provide access to the site by the construction equipment.
The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 0.06 acres (ac) [0.02 hectare (ha)].
Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is depicted in the attached
drawings (Sheets 4 to 6). Only one causeway will be built at a time. The riprap will be
removed before the other causeway is built.
No jurisdictional wetlands occur on the project site.
Bridge No. 67 is 180 ft (54.9 m) long with 6 spans. The bridge superstructure
consists of prestressed concrete channel supported by reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles. Bridge l 67 will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of
the United States. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in
addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project
is classified as Case 3 in which there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added
by this document on Bridge Demolition.
RESTORATION PLAN
The project schedule calls for a June 2003 let date. It is expected that the
contractor will chose to start construction of the causeways shortly after that date.
The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the rock causeways will
be completely removed. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original
contours and elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served.
After the causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating
equipment to remove all materials. The rip rap used in the causeways may be placed as
riprap slope protection. All causeway material will become the property of the
contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of
and disposal of all materials off -site.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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
March 7, 2002, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 3 federally
protected species for Sampson County. Table 1 lists the species, their status and
biological conclusion.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Sampson County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological
Status Conclusion
American alligator Alligator T/SA None Required
mississippiensis
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E No Effect
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No Effect
woodpecker
"B" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to similarity
of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given for pondberry and the red-
cockaded woodpecker in the CE document (dated January 2001). Surveys were
conducted on July 2000 and no habitat was found within the project area for any of the
listed species. The American alligator is Threatened by Similarity of Appearance and not
subject to Section 7 consultation, although this project is not expected to affect the
American alligator.
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeway will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering).
We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23
CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We
anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3361 and 3366 will apply to this project.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .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.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Rachelle
Beauregard at 715-1383.
Sincerely
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA

61
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Office Use Only: o3 o Form Version May 2002
156
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT/Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141
E-mail Address:
Fax Number: 919-733-9794
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 67 over Great Coharie Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
B-3699
County: Sampson Nearest Town: Ingold
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.)
See map in permit drawings
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 34.827°N, 78.348°W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Great Coharie Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: It is mostly forested with one residence around the
project site
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 67 will be replaced on existing location. Traffic will be detoured off-site
during construction. Two temporary causeways will be used to provide access to
construction equipment for construction of the bridge. Only one causeway will be built
at one time. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers,
cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 7 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The only jurisdictional impacts
will occur by temporary stream impacts due to 2 rock causeways. Only 1 causeway will be
built at one time.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland
Impact

Site Number
(indicate on
map)

Type of
Impact*
Area of

Impact
(acres) Located within

100-year
Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to

Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)

,?
Type of Wetland***
0

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property
Total area of wetland impact proposed: none
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Length of
Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of
Impact *
Stream Name*
of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on Impact* (linear feet) Before Impact (please
map) specify)
Site 1 temporary 0.03 ac Great Coharie n/a perennial
causeway Creek
Site 2 temporary 0.03 Great Coharie n/a perennial
causeway Creek

none
Page 8 of 13
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site
N/A
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water
Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)
*
Type of Impact* Area of

Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary,
sound, bay, ocean, etc.)
No impacts

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands F-1 stream
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The only jurisdictional impacts to this project come from temporary causeways. The
? wetlands
installation of
Page 9 of 13
entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original contours and elevations after the
purpose of the causewayhas been served.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No stream mitigation is required for this project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
t
Page 10 of 13
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):_
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
N/A
Page I 1 of 13
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
cone t extenas out su reet perpenaicuiar from near nanK or cnannet; cone /_ extenas an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F1 No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
Page 12 of 13
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 13 of 13
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Leek
L ,' ..
9
1156 8 1137 O
c?
4004 1137 F4.7
1.8
.1 12 -
1134 T
Y
W
W 411
m 1157 U fo Z3
6
CpHPEj\E 1136 ?' 1158
SITE
7

1125
01 ti? 1133 s 1131 1131
41 '
1133
•e
1133
41 r ' I op
6 r'C 8 1132
Ci 1 1
T GARLAND
` POP. 794
02 `
? r
1200
01
0 1 2 MLLES
B ?- A
SCALE
VICINITY MAP
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281301 (B-3699)
REPLACE BRIDGE #67 ON NC 903
OVER GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SHEET 1 OF ff
A
I

s

??
ter.
?' ' I
?
• 60 `
? t
?. `--/ .?--+,.

50)

Sir ? ? 1by +?tw?U '

' ? M1•l.L

.
,
46-
r. eP
46
..
4
6 446^. 46 4 46
`
a4:
• ?
} r
'
46 ale 46 -.6 -16 .pV ? .... _ •.... . .
_ 46 46
Z. Z, ak ? Ib _ )d
SITE Ml' 11 U 2.500 5.000
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 5,000ft.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281301 (B-3699)
REPLACE BRIDGE #87 ON NC 903
OVER GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SHEET 2 OF
LEGEND
WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY TOg TOP OF BANK
w?8 TOE TOE OF BANK

WLB WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN.
WETLAND
..DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
X )K DENOTES MECHANIZED
X A CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
TOP OF BANK
WE
EDGE OF WATER
PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG - - NATURAL GROUND
PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TIDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
I-? PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281301 (B-3699)
REPLACE BRIDGE #67 ON NC 903
OVER GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SHEET 3 OF 8'
A
I
BL-103 18+04.74 PINC
BY-103 5+00.00 PO ,% .
BL-103 18+ 7?4
dY _1D3-+00.00
a
F II OO e
cr,
w
O
,?

e

cv
?
+
0
Il
,
PH ? E
E,
0
? a

I b
m
4
m a I;
p
<o r?
6
X
a'(r'S•
> xji 202??
? 2f
E a
E
'g T SOIL 4
;n
?H _ t G
3 N 75. 09' 08.6 E
:1 •?r
a
301
a 'h 00+02' xavair sIreoo
tlp•
.? 301
I?
2
4
oY
BL-102 12+36.17 PING;
Ti-200 5+00.00 POT
ELEV =48.42' 4
rE (i
r'
m y
b
ZO ? li
a b O
ro E?O?o a I?
iA
N
i
00+g1
nom-,/ ?? N z ?>
?o
?n
0
0
0
I ti Q
b 4
z o y,
m4 I
EY y
?o N
e
m w
'I-
V J
c
E.
b U
z
11

I ?
? ;~ E
. 55.5
I , ?
69
x
n
rk x c
e son
LLJ

W Cf)
ah
U ? V
K ? b
m C O
C
ti
? O
a ?9 U
?- J
O?OO }tn
000. w a
O W
?DO?OV• U
LLJ
Q
r II II q II II LLJ
4caAN?C 0=n
wZ
H
Ln
'

15' 00 ' E
t4 77 1500
'
14.90'
r j 364.99
4 Q
I
,.
I -4 O V O co
O
. O o) C7 + V
O U M ^
+

Z

I I m , +Iti I V7 V
?,?; ? ? ?1 E
Y
© w a
\ ?tJ m
"?1
? i

? z

° co
?. o
? rn (M
x

'

.
E"
U) CD
° W
r E- '
, C) z c4
x }, i °
d p o? d
? o
I
a o E-y
o
z U
w
Ckf
U
C?
f3.
° C
. -i C5 E-

CD
:E: CC)

x w
E-+

w I Q
z
Of w?
0-4
A Q Ww

L)
i p
W
I O aW o
Cl)
+ z
x
I ? z ?-
' N

- X
w

I I
I I
Lli N
II .-7 U

-----
-----

-- w z
o
w O E-
U) O a0
x

- - - - - - - - -
- - - - Z + O O
I

I I
O
I
I n I
? V

I
I ----------- -
I
i
o
0

I ---------- ?
r-

W rl
I
I LLJ

u'
)
N
11
I
~
O C\2
Uw `O I I i ::D
U Cn 0

LL, W -
C) r
I
I I - --- -- '
/ o

w
?-
O C5
+ I I
?' ?
O
I i. O
i i

?l

0 0 o a

I
z CO
?--? -? o
o cn a, x
H
Ed+ ?' co
p4l ? (x d ?,," ? C?
k?
0. z ? O W
m 41-1 p o d
dx c, cox
E- Z co
w° o
F
rr?? O
3: in i W co U W C9
w Q A E?. Q Q cv a a o x
U
o I z x t"
0
w
NN
W w
N
ova o?a? w
o °
a-
N cn
in r
C) X u 0-1
?Q
I Gi? O H V)
(n O
LLJ
Y I S''? Q? II 0= II 0=
w Y = Q II N II cn cn
p w N a- z
? ,Z 0 ? ? fr ??v ?o
p I U W a a
Z = Z 07
m I li O
U) (nn=
C)
ui -n ni V NcD ?((n p
O V
) w 4
LL-j
? > ° ~ OwO? 00? w
wI ?-
-J. ?Q? Q
Q ww? ww? f-
OX<n OOf cn O
cn >Qw >Qw r
?I N
z?
w w
N sod
?- U N U

? i I O
N
c
W

lWi p ? I 1 O
m O U
N v
? ?
y c I 1 O
^
V O?
_
= U

o =^
U =ti

CL

LLJ -
X L d
Q WU
3 -
W = 0 0 0

W 0 0 0
dU U
E C O
N a> - v
F--
ii: 1 1 0
N
C
C O U
W O

G U)^ 1 I O
N p ?
C .O. U

N p O
z `i
Lz

U v = I I O
? rn-
N
p O O V
C

N c N
a I I O

? > N V

p X
W c
Z
s =? 1 1 0

3 p a?
O- ? U
E
U
? C
N I I O
C ?^
C ?
p U
_

? I I
? N
(? N
N
(n
? M
+ +
c F
o rn ON
o
o I
Ln t
^O

6? U
N

-
- (n

-?% p
? J

cn Z N
O
F-
z
0
E-
U,
E-
W
O
ax
Q
?x
E-+ w
Gt. O
oz
E? 0,
W
A
U
z
E-
z
O
U
z
O
a
W
F-
0
Z
co
?o

z
CYD
a
?
OW
--i W

co O
W U
6
C
a w w

oaW w
P4
W O ?
x ?

PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE NAME ADDRESS
1 CLEON LAINER 3041 Lisbon Bridge Road
Garland, NC 28441
2 BENJAMIN R. BREWSTER P.O. Box 7063
Macon, GA 31209
Ph# 717-428-3158
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281301 (B-3699)
REPLACE BRIDGE #67 ON NC 903
OVER GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SHEET 7 OF Y'

Sampson County
NC 903
Bridge No. 67 over Coharie Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-903(2)
State Project No. 8.1281301
T.I.P. No. B-3699
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
k? 6z
Wily D. Gilmore, P.E., Mana
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
i bol 01
AT
'J" c-
Nic olas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
I 3 i D(
TE
Sampson County
NC 903
Bridge No. 67 over Coharie Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-903(2)
State Project No. 8.1281301
T.I.P. No. B-3699
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 2001
' Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
• a G°
E _
rd, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
Fs _ For North Carolina Department of Transportation
1
Tho as R. Kendig, AICP
1 Consultant Engineering U 't ead
1
1
1 Robert Andrew J ner, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
2
r
i
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
/
1
1
Project Commitments
Sampson County
NC 903
Bridge No. 67 over Coharie Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-903(2)
State Project No. 8.1281301
T.I.P. No. B-3699
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for. Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NC-DOT:
NONE
Categorical Exclusion
January, 2001
3
Sampson County
NC 903
Bridge No. 67 over Coharie Creek
Federal-Aid Project No, BRZ-903(2)
State Project No. 8.1281301
T.I.P. No. B-3699
Bridge No. 67 is located in Sampson County on NC 903 where it crosses the Great
Coharie Creek. Bridge No. 67 is included in the Draft North Carolina Department of
Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program and is part of the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 67 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 at its existing location
with a new structure approximately 200 feet (61 meters) long with a clear roadway width
of 30 feet (9.1 meters). The immediate approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) of
pavement with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders. During the construction period, the existing
bridge will be closed and traffic will be routed along existing roads. The estimated cost
for the recommended proposed improvement is $1,120,000. The current estimated cost
of the project, as shown in the Draft NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $65,000 for right-of-way and $675,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 903 crosses over Coharie Creek approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) east of
Garland in the southern portion of Sampson County. Development in the immediate
area is sparse with a single residence and outbuildings on the east side of the south
approach. This residence will not be impacted by any of the studied alternatives.
Several large hog farm operations and logging operations are located in the extended
area and generate significant truck-tractor semi-trailer volumes. NC 903 is classified as
a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
NC 903 has a current pavement width of 22 feet (6.6 meters) with 10-foot (3.0-meter)
grass shoulders in the area of the bridge. The roadway approaches are a tangent
section with a flat vertical alignment in the proximity of the existing structure. There is a
slight right curve approaching the bridge from the south and NC 903 makes a sharp turn
to the east at the tee intersection approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters) north of the
bridge. This intersection will not be affected by any replacement alternative. Sight
distance is good both to the north and to the south.
4
The traffic volumes on NC 903 at Coharie Creek are currently 1800 vehicles per day
(vpd) and are projected to be 3000 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include
an estimated 9 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 % dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 67 as shown in Figure 2 has an overall length of 180.0 feet (6 spans at 30
feet) [54.9 meters (6 spans at 9.1 meters)] and a clear roadway width of 24.2 feet (7.4
meters). The existing two-lane bridge has a prestressed concrete channel
superstructure supported by reinforced concrete caps on timber piles at 5-foot 6-inch
(1.7-meter) centers. The structure was constructed in 1961. The current posted weight
limit is 22 tons (20 metric tons) for single unit vehicles and 25 tons (22.7 metric tons) for
truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 17.4 compared
to a rating of 100 for a new structure and approaches. Bridge No. 67 has a bed-to-
crown distance of approximately 20 feet (6.0 meters).
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from
February 1, 1997 to January 31, 2000. One accident involved two vehicles and was
caused by a northbound (NC 903) right-turning vehicle that skidded into a westbound
vehicle that was stopped at the intersection of NC 903 with SR 1134. Total cost of the
accident was $ 10,500. The second accident was a single vehicle that ran off the road.
Total cost of accident two was $ 4,600. The accident rate is 543.6 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles of travel (337:8 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers)
compared to the statewide average of 228.87 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of
travel (142.2 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers) for NC numbered rural
highways (2 lanes undivided).
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. Both power and telephone lines parallel
Bridge No. 67 on its western side. The telephone cables are buried; becoming aerial as
they cross the creek. Utility conflicts should be considered as low.
Public school buses cross the present bridge 10 times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Given the black water swamp characteristics of Coharie Creek and the existing tangent
section, new location alternates are not considered feasible or prudent. Based on
preliminary hydrographic studies, the most feasible alternative is to replace the existing
bridge structure with a new structure at its existing alignment. The studied alternates
were (1) to replace the structure at existing location with a temporary detour on either
the east or west side and (2) to replace the structure at existing location closing NC 903
and utilizing an off site detour (See Figures 3, 4 & 5). The investigation of the temporary
detour alternatives is compared with the off-site detour alternative. The posted speed
limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) and the corresponding design speed is 60 mph (100 kmph)
for the existing bridge and the replacement bridge. The elevation of the new bridge will
be approximately the same elevation of the existing bridge. The design speed for a
temporary detour on either side of the existing bridge will be 50 mph (80 kmph).
5

a

The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by NC 903.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient with a sufficiency rate
of 17.4. (A new bridge has a sufficiency rating of 100.)
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in
the following table:
Alternate 1
With On-site
Detour East Alternate 2
With On-site
Detour West Alternate 3
With Off-site
Detour
Structure Removal $36,860 $36,860 $36,860
Structure $445,500 $445,500 $445,500
Roadwa ? Approaches $145,010 $145,010 $145,010
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $282,630 $282,630 $282,630
En ineerin and Contingencies $140,000 $140,000 $140,000
Temporary Detour $750,000 $700,000 $0
-
SUBTOTAL $1,800,000 $1,750,000 $1,050,000
Right-of-Way / Const. Ease. / Util. $92,500 $63,000 $70,000
TOTAL $1,892,500 $1,813,000 $1,120,000
1
1 The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 % has been
1 included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering
and contingencies.
6
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended alternative is Alternate 3, see Figure 5. The replacement structure
is a new bridge structure at the existing location, approximately 200 feet (61 meters)
long with a 30-foot (9.1-meter) clear roadway width. The grade of the roadway over the
new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The approaches to
the bridge will have a pavement width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
grassed shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). The detour
alternates are shown in Figure 6.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
On-site detours east (Alternate 1 - see Figure 3) and west (Alternate 2 - see Figure 4)
of the existing bridge were investigated. The estimated construction cost of the eastern
temporary detour is $750,000. The estimated construction cost of the western
temporary detour is $700,000. The feasibility of road closure with an off-site detour was
investigated (see Figure 6). The studied off-site detour routes included using sections
of SR 1157, SR 1134 (Lisbon Bridge Road), SR 1135, NC 411, NC 903 and US 701.
The possible detour routes are characterized by 18 to 22-foot (5.4 to 6.6-meter) two-
lane roadways with 6 to 8-foot (1.8 to 2.4-meter) grassed shoulders. The implied speed
limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in lieu of specified postings for all potential segments of the
detour. There are no structures on any of the possible detour route segments (structure
numbers 14, 22, and 66) with posted weight restrictions.
The traffic volume inventory in the project study area was not robust enough to develop
concrete origin-destination patterns. The current traffic volume in the vicinity of the
bridge no. 67 is 1800 vpd. The 2025 traffic volume is projected to be 3000 vpd. A study
of possible travel patterns in the area of the project indicate that regional or long-haul
traffic from major surrounding employment centers (Clinton, Fayetteville, Lumberton,
and Wilmington) would most likely use US 421, US 701, NC 41, NC 242 and 1-40.
Three different possible traffic patterns were developed for the existing 1800 vpd using
bridge no. 67. It was estimated that less than 100 vpd would most likely need to make
the approximately 10-mile (16.1-kilometer) trip from one side of the bridge to the other.
It was also estimated that approximately 1000 vpd would be required to make an
approximately 2.5-mile (4-kilometer) extra length trip to complete their trip from either
SR 1134 or NC 903 with origin or destination to NC 411 westward towards Garland.
The remaining 700 vpd would be required to travel an extra 3.5-mile (5.6-kilometer)
length trip from either SR 1134 or NC 903 with origin or destination southward on NC
411. For the 12-month construction period, the off-site detour would have an estimated
road user cost of $673,000 (at 32.5 cents per vehicle-mile). A benefit cost ratio of 0.90
7

for the eastern detour and 0.96 for the western detour (comparing the on-site detour
cost versus the additional road user cost) indicate justification to provide an off-site
detour. The Division Office indicated their concurrence with the recommendation for
road closure with an off-site detour.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
mapping (Ingold, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands Inventory mapping (7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA
1985), and recent aerial photography (scale 1 inch=100 feet 12.5 centimeters=30.5
meters]) furnished by KO and Associates.
The site was visited on 18 July 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. Impact calculations are based on approximate cut-
and-fill boundaries; Actual impacts will be limited to construction limits and require more
detailed construction plans for impact calculations. Special concerns evaluated in the
field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality
protection in Great Coharie Creek and the Black River located 0.6 miles (0.97
kilometers) downstream of the study corridor.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation
biologists Matthew T. Cusack and Ward Elis.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) names follow nomenclature found in Aulback-Smith et aL
(1996). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected
population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et aL
1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer et aL 1995, Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources
(DWQ 1996, DWQ 1998). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data.
8
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges which extend
into Sampson County (June 16, 2000) was obtained prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally or state
listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Project Area
The study corridor is located 4.0 miles (6.4 kilometers) east of the township of Garland,
NC, and 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) southeast of the township of Ingold, NC. The study
corridor is located in a rural area of Sampson County (Figure 1). The study corridor is
located along SR 1134 at Great Coharie Creek, and is nested between Lisbon Road
(SR 1003) approximately 375 feet (114.3 meters) to the north and N.C. State Highway
411 approximately 2200 feet (670.6 meters) to the south. The study corridor spans the
floodplain, channel, and adjacent banks of Great Coharie Creek. Three construction
alternates are currently being considered. On-site temporary bridges and approach
causeways are being considered for two alternates, while an off-site detour is proposed
for the third. Both temporary alternates involve spanning Great Coharie Creek while
the bridge is replaced in the existing location. Alternate 1 involves a temporary bridge
offset 38 feet (11.6 meters) to the east of the existing bridge (Figure 2A), while Alternate
2 involves a temporary bridge offset 38 feet (11.6 meters) to the west of the existing
bridge (Figure 213). Alternate 3 involves diverting traffic to offsite detours during bridge
reconstruction. Land use in the vicinity of the bridge is primarily forested, but
maintained areas associated with utility easements, parking associated with canoe
access, and residential lawns also occur within the study corridor (Figure 2A,2B).
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Black Creek Geologic formation within the Inner
Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized
as nearly level to gently sloping. but includes some side slopes along dissected, shallow
stream valleys. The study corridor is located in the floodplain of Great Coharie Creek.
The stream bank walls slope abruptly on the northern banks, while sloping less abruptly
on the southern banks, and are approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) in height from top of
bank to the water surface. Elevations in the study corridor range from a high of 50 feet
(15.2 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on the floodplain to a low of 35
feet (10.7 meters) NGVD near the water surface within the stream channel. Elevations
drop moderately from the floodplain into the stream channel, with an average drop of 15
feet (4.6 meters) NGVD (USGS Ingold quadrangle). The broad floodplain extends out
of the project area. The high banks of Great Coharie Creek are likely to prevent water
from reaching the floodplain except in the most extreme flood stage conditions.
Typically, Great Cohade Creek supports regular, low velocity, moderate-volume flows.
The dominant soil mapping unit within the study corridor is Chipley sand (Aquic
Quartzipsamments), while Johnston loam (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Lumbee sandy
loam (Typic Ochraquults) are less common soils which occur within small areas of the
9

study corridor. The Chipley series is characterized as nearly level, moderately well
drained with rapid permeability. The series typically occurs on smooth, low ridges and
is mapped adjacent to and underneath the existing road facility (USDA 1985). Chipley
soils are considered to be non-hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA 1996). The Johnston series is characterized as nearly level, very poorly drained
with moderately rapid permeability. The series typically occurs on moderately broad
flood plains, and is mapped east of the subject bridge along the banks of Great Coharie
Creek (USDA 1985). Johnston soils are considered to be hydric in Sampson County
(USDA 1996). The Lumbee series is characterized as nearly level, poorly drained with
moderate permeability. The series typically occurs on smooth flats and in shallow
depressions on stream terraces, and is mapped in a small pocket adjacent to Lisbon
Road (SR 1003) at the northeastern edge of the corridor (USDA 1985). Lumbee soils
are considered to be hydric in Sampson County (NRCS 1996).
1
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-19 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 1996). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03030006 of the South Atlantic
Gulf Coast Region. The facility proposed for replacement spans Great Coharie Creek
with no direct involvement of additional streams or tributaries. The nearest tributary
(according to USGS mapping) to Great Coharie Creek lies 1760 feet (536.4 meters) to
the southwest (upstream) of the project bridge. Another important tributary is Six Runs
Creek which occurs approximately 3040 feet (926.6 meters) to the east (downstream) of
the project bridge. The Black River is formed by the confluence of Great Coharie Creek
and Six Runs Creek. The section of Great Coharie Creek crossed by the subject bridge
has been assigned Stream Index Number 18-68-1 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ 1998).
Stream Characteristics
Great Coharie Creek is a well-defined Coastal Plain river with low flow over an
unconsolidated substrate. Water clarity was moderate during the field visit, considering
that slight turbidity is common as a result of tannins and detrital matter in blackwater
swamp stream systems. At the existing bridge, Great Coharie Creek is approximately
63 feet (19.2 meters) in width and 15 feet (4.6 meters) from top of banks to water
surface. During field investigations, Great Coharie Creek supported approximately 5
feet (1.5 meters) of water with slow flow velocity. The channel banks are steep and local
disturbances from crossing power lines, original bridge construction, catastrophic
flooding from the summer of 1999 (hurricane Floyd), and human disturbance from
parking near the stream banks for canoeing access have caused slumping of banks into
the stream channel. Banks which support shrub or forest vegetation are better defined
with little soil slumping. One species of rooted aquatic vegetation was identified in the
stream channel. Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum spp. sagitfifolium) is rooted on organic
10
debris (i.e., stumps, branches, leaves) in isolated, small patches west of the existing
bridge.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of C sw has been assigned to Great Coharie Creek
(DWQ 1998). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or
incidental basis. The sw designation denotes that the stream has a flow regime and
physical chemistry characteristics that are typical of a swamp. The Black River, created
from the confluence of Great Coharie Creek and Six Runs Creek carries the designation
of C sw ORW+. The Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation denotes waters
which are unique, special, or of exceptional state, national, recreational, or ecological
significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses (DWQ 1998). No
designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-
11) waters occur within 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1996). Benthic macro-invertebrate community
sampling has been undertaken for the last 17 years on Great Coharie Creek. There has
been little change in water quality as indicated by these invertebrates. Sampling of
Great Coharie Creek indicates that water quality is Good (DWQ 1996).
The Cape Fear River sub-basin 03-06-19 supports one major point-source discharger
and six minor dischargers. Total permitted flow for the one major discharger is 3.00
million gallons per day (MGD) (11.35 million liters per day [MLD]), and total permitted
flow for the six minor dischargers is 1.33 MGD (5.03 MLD) (DWQ 1996). Non-point
source discharges include agriculture, urban runoff, construction, forestry, mining,
onsite wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition (DWQ
1996). Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point
source discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and
parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters. The most recent water
quality chemical data were used to determine that this reach of Great Coharie Creek is
Supporting its designated uses (DWQ 1996).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
i
11
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed
sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch, basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in Great Coharie Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. The proposed
bridge will continue to provide navigability for canoes and other small water craft. Long-
term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be
negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
entire life of the project.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the
United States The temporary fill potential is limited to the 2 spans of the bridge that is
suspended over the water surface and is estimated to be 28.4 cubic yards (21.7 cubic
meters) of bridge material. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge and no
temporary fill is anticipated.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: pine/mixed
hardwood forest, urban/disturbed land, and submerged aquatic vegetation. These plant
communities are described below.
Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest - Pine/mixed hardwood forest occurs on floodplains,
side slopes, edges of floodplains, and along stream margins of Great Coharie Creek.
Within the study corridor, this community is represented by areas outside of man-
created disturbances such as power lines, residential yards, and the existing bridge and
roadway facility. The sparse canopy is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), but a
mixture of hardwood species occurs occasionally in the canopy and dominates the
understory. River birch (Betula nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak (Quercus fa/cata), and red maple (Acer
rubrum) are interspersed amongst loblolly pine in the canopy. The understory is
12
comprised primarily of canopy saplings, but white oak (Quercus alba), privet (Ligustrum
sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca), post oak (Quercus stellata), and sparkleberry
(Vaccinium arboreum) are also present. A sparse ground cover is comprised of first
year canopy and understory species, but cross-vine (Bignonia capreolata), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) are also found.
Urban/Disturbed Land - Urban/disturbed land includes roadside margins, residential
development with associated hardened surfaces and maintained vegetation, power line
corridors, and canoe parking and access points. Invasive weeds are present in
roadside margins and utility right-of-ways. Common invasive species are crabgrass
(Digitaria sanguinalis), clover (Lespedeza spp.), bracken fern (Pteddium aquillinum), red
maple, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), sweetgum, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
dandelion (Taraxacum offrcinale), and cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca). Residential lots,
as well as roadside margins, are planted with Bermuda grass (Cynadon dactylon) and
fescue (Festuca sp.).
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Submerged Aquatic Vegetation is an area of aquatic
rooted vascular plants which occurs adjacent to the banks of Great Coharie Creek near
the project bridge. This community is comprised of a single species of emergent
aquatic vegetation, Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum spp. sagittifolium). This sub-species of
Nuphar luteum is usually found in flowing water, where the leaf margins appear
undulate due to the slowly moving currents.
Plant Communities within the Study Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected right-of way. Permanent impacts are considered to be
those impacts that occur within the cut-and-fill limits. Temporary impacts are those
impacts that occur between cut-and-fill limits and the proposed right-of-way. A
summary of potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 1.
Alternate 3 provides the least amount of impacts to plant communities because it does
not involve temporary detours, and construction will be limited to areas adjacent to the
existing facility. Alternates 1 involves equal impacts to urban/disturbed and natural
communities. Alternate 2 involves greater impacts to the urban/disturbed community
than natural communities, but also involves impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation.
Overall, permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements
are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway
approach segments. Potential impacts to natural (not regularly maintained) plant
communities are anticipated to be minimal. The total potential impacts to plant
communities based on cut-and-fill boundaries for the proposed facilities are primarily to
urban/disturbed land (approximately 80 percent of the potential impacts).
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are
minimal. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will
13
result only in relocation of ecotonal boundaries. Also, much of the alignment is currently
bounded by a relatively wide, cleared-and-maintained right-of-way, utility lines, and
maintained/disturbed land associated with residential development. Therefore, the
proposed project may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural communities.
Roadside forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into local
natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides
is kudzu. The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as
practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable
plants.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
No mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc) or sightings were noted within the study corridor
during this investigation. However, opportunistic and characteristic species which are
expected to frequent woodlands and fringe areas include cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), beaver
(Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttall?).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), rufus-sided "eastern" towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and red- shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Other species, such as downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), yellow-rumped
warbler (Dendroica coronata), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl
(Otus asio), American robin (Turdus migratorius), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus
calendula), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) are
expected to occur within forest and ecotonal communities.
I No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor;
however, terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the project corridor
include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), brown snake (Storeria dekay?),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and copperhead (Agkistron contortrix).
1
1
14

Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no documentation of aquatic reptiles or amphibians in the
study corridor. Great Coharie Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-
aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians
which may occur within the project corridor include snapping turtle (Chelydra
se?pentina), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), river cooter (Pseudemys concinna),
brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster),
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus auriculatus), mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), green frog
(Rana clamitans), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and pickerel frog (Rana
palustris).
No sampling was undertaken in Great Coharie Creek to determine fishery potential.
Visual surveys of Great Coharie Creek did not reveal the presence of minnows,
molluscan fauna, or other aquatic life; however, species which may be present within
Great Coharie Creek include dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and margined
madtom (Noturus insignis). Potential game fish which may be present within the study
corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)- and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
15
a
48
41
;.
N
L
tea
d
t
m
L
V
ca
c
V
d
V
.'
O
a -
CL
L
03
e" M
w
^W L
Ali
F- >
L
m
i.r
3
tlJ
d
3
E
O
U
c
cv
IL

ZZ
a.
O
0
C
h N
CD CO
C L-
L- N
CL

co ?to 0000 i
M T7 M M i
O O O O
Ll.
M ? U-) W
N ? C) M
66 66
Lo
N co
V- O
m
C,4
a 0
E o0
N
00
00
t LO LO MgIN^
to 00 ? q .
O N v O O
l? Lo co [? 1 (? 0
CO N N CA i 00 r-
O O CV O CV
Ic) O M
M
00
0 11- M N V- O O
Q
E l00 OCR 00

? N co 00 i
to co co co
C) ?- O
C
C ?-. .-.
Co LO Lo m '

O O O
L
z to
cL v
O C; M
O
Q
E co O O
N `-

"a
U
r ?
N,
3r ? Co co
'a O-J
m U- Q
M r
?- O
M LO
O
C,o
V-
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. However, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the
systems to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Great Coharie Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the
United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Great Coharie
Creek exhibits characteristics of a riverine, lower perennial system which has an
unconsolidated bottom and is permanently flooded (R2UBH) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Field investigations indicate that Great Coharie Creek is a bank-to-bank system, and no
adjacent wetlands are present within the study corridor. The length (feet) [meters] and
area (acres) [hectares] of open water (Great Coharie Creek) shaded by proposed
bridging is presented in Table 2.
Alternates 1 and 2 have identical impacts because they involve onsite temporary
detours. Alternate 3 has the least amount of impacts to jurisdictional areas because it
involves an offsite detour. No shading impacts associated with temporary bridging are
proposed for Alternate 3. No direct impacts are expected as a result of bridge
construction activities over Great Coharie Creek. Bridging will not result in fill or
dredging of wetlandstwaters of the United States. All impacts will be indirect, resulting
from shade created by the bridge impacting submerged aquatic vegetation
communities. Encroachment into Great Coharie Creek will be avoided.

17
I
1
I
I
1
Ji
d
N
?L1
V
L
.C
?O
V
L
w N
O
L r
V
Q7
L
1 0
O C4
O E
.a V
d
.d+ 'C
.? O
f.
d M
L
L
V H
R ?
? L
E ea
CV d m
d cc .
c
ca c *;
1"- O d
?E
H O
'i yd
ffl ?
O
> .a
m O
- Q
a .
L
C d
r
3 m
aM
E?
.d J
3
c
d
CL
O
R
C
r
O
CL
O
L
Q
a)
? 0
O O
C „ r
(D Co C?
p
M
0 M O
a_
Co CO
1
O cy; i
Q - 1
N M 1
LO CO
0 co ? O
a? OR
m ? O O
C O O
CN
C14
aD
n ai o
O N ( O
I-- C)
C'm00
T- O O
C r
_ c
C 0i O
E N M
M O
O
N
cc M O
O i O
O. v
E N u)
- M O
O
U ^
C N
" U
co
cc
C Q
aD
V-
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent)
of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three-parameter approach, no
jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into
"waters of the United States" during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is
expected to result from bridge removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where
there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate with the various
resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved.
Permits .
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,
65916; December 13, 1996) has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected
minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
#23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that
NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities
could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and
removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final
determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. rests with the COE and DWQ.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), officially
proposed (P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in
19
9%
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
resembles and Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Table 3 lists
federally protected species for Sampson County (June 16, 2000 FWS list).
Table 3.
Federally protected species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
American Alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity
in appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large streams and
canals, and ponds and lakes. NHP records indicate that American alligators have not
been documented within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the study corridor.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the American alligator.
' Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [17.8 to 21.6
centimeters] long has a black head, a prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-
white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
1 cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et a/. 1980). Primary habitat consists
1 of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda),
long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. el/iotit), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and
1 Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The
' woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent
natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
h Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees:
The pine/mixed hardwood forest community located within the study corridor can be
20
divided into two separate age groups. To the north of the subject bridge, recent
timbering (within 20 years) has led to dense hardwood understory and sub-canopy
development. Lack of full canopy development offers no suitable habitat for red-
cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging. To the south of the subject bridge, the
community has been timbered within the last 20 to 40 years. A sparse, pine-dominated
canopy has developed, but a dense sub-canopy of hardwoods is beginning to grow into
and fill out the upper canopy. This community is still too young to serve as suitable
nesting habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker, and consists of marginal foraging
habitat, at best, for the species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor does not support a pine-
dominated community older than 70 years. The pine/mixed hardwood forest in
the southern part of the study corridor could provide marginal foraging habitat, at
best. The pine/mixed hardwood forest in the northern part of the study corridor
provides no appropriate habitat. NHP records indicate that there are no known
nesting colonies within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project corridor, and there
is no documentation of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the vicinity of the project
corridor. For this reason, the red-cockaded woodpecker is not expected to use
the communities within the study corridor. Based on a NHP record search and
habitat surveys conducted during field investigations, this project will not affect
red-cockaded woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Pondberry - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited distribution occurring in two
portions of the southeastern United States: the Mississippi Valley and the Coastal Plain
of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its range, pondberry is known
to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from hardwood depressional
areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the Carolinas, pondberry
occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in pinelands (FWS 1993).
Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds
with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the shrub pondspice (Litsea
aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens) with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Leonard 1995).
The study corridor supports a secondary growth pine-dominated mixed hardwood
forest. No depressions, sink holes, shallow ponds, or Carolina bays occur within the
study corridor. Associated vegetation for pondberry (pondspice and pond cypress) was
not documented within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Pondberry typically occurs in sink-hole
depressions, Carolina bays, or suitable ponded depressions. On-site surveys
found no suitable habitat for pondberry. NHP has no documentation of
pondberry within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the project corridor. Based on
available information, this project will not affect pondberry. NO EFFECT
21
Ah
Federal Species of Concern - The June 16, 2000 FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern". A species with this designation is
one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing). Table 4 provides a list of these Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species listed.
NHP files have no documentation of FSC species within the study corridot or within 2.0
miles (3.2 kilometers) of the study corridor.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1997, LeGrand and Hall 1997) receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate two
occurrences of eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) and one occurrence of eastern
creekshell (Villosa delumbis) within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the study corridor. The
eastern lampmussel has been collected from Great Coharie Creek at the subject bridge,
as well as the southernmost bridge on Six Runs Creek. Eastern creekshell has been
collected at, above, and below the subject bridge from Great Coharie Creek. The
eastern lampmussel is designated as Special Concern, while the eastern creekshell
has been designated as Significantly Rare by the State of North Carolina. The
designation Special Concern denotes "any species of wild animal or once0native to
North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require
monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of
this Article." (Article 25 of Chapter 112 of the General Statutes; 1987). The designation
Significantly Rare denotes "any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species,
but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the NHP to
need monitoring" (LeGrand, 1997). No Federal protection is granted to these species.
22
Table 4.
Federal Species of Concern County
(June 16, 2000 FWS list)
Common Name Scientific Name Potential State Status*
Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis no SC
Rafinesques' big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafrnesquii yes SC(PT)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus yes SR(PSC)
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus yes SC(PT)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason yes T(PE)
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito yes SC(PT)
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana yes SR
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula no C-SC
Butternut Juglans cinerea no W5
White wicky Kalmia cuneata no E-SC/PC
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis no C
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana no T
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago vema no T
A Liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii yes W2
"State Status Codes: E - Endangered W - Watch List
T - Threatened SR - Significantly Rare
SC - Special Concern C - Candidate
PE - Proposed Endangered PT - Proposed Threatened
23
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Ko and Associates
on March 10, 2000. All structures within the APE were photographed on March 10,
2000, and submitted for review. Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT staff architectural historian,
reviewed the maps and photographs and in a Memo dated June 14, 2000, indicated that
further evaluations of one property should be undertaken for this project by NCDOT's in-
house architectural staff. On July 7, 2000, representatives of NCDOT, FHWA and the
State Historic Preservation Office reviewed properties in the project's area of potential
effect and concluded there are no properties considered eligible for the National
Register and a concurrence form was signed to this effect. A copy of the concurrence
form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their September 5, 2000 letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed." Given the limited scope of the project, no effects
on archaeological sites are anticipated.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge.
24
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
All three alternatives replace the existing bridge at its current location with identical
permanent right-of-way requirements. The required right-of-way for all three alternatives
affects only bottomland hardwood forest or distributed roadside land. Alternatives 1 and
2 would require temporary easements to contain the temporary on-site detours. Neither
of the alternatives involves any existing farmland and all three alternatives have the
same "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" scare of 60. The. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA) determined that no prime farmlands would be affected by
any of the three alternatives, thereby, meeting the requirements of the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes
because of the project. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for
air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act)
and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
25

On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
X. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
I
I Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Commission
*NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Sampson County
Chairman, Sampson County Commissioners
Superintendent, Sampson County Public Schools
Sampson County Regional Medical Center
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
Public Involvement
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public
involvement program was initiated. Ko & Associates prepared a newsletter that was
sent to property owners in the immediate vicinity. No comments from property owners
were received as a result of the newsletter.
26
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC.
Aulbach-Smith, C.A and S.J. de Kozlowski. 1996. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of South
Carolina. Water Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Columbia, SC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ).- 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
1 LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
1 Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
1 Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
melissaefolia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison .III. 1980. Amphibians and
27
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F-.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers
nesting habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The
Ecology and Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1996. Hydric Soils: Sampson County. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section 11-A 2.
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, NC.
255 pp.
28
Ah
s
J A /
BRIDGE NO.
j tir _J
1527
? a
South Rlver?
Ch.
f , 10 .•
1526
SmffHS POND 4?7
1529
moo.. {p
S A M P "S °;Oy1N

O ,t
?s
_ . r \ Nk ??.
Ar 'N NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i.?P?RROJWTT DEVELOPMENT AND
DI BRIDGE NO. 67
NC 903 OVER COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3699
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
-' TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

- .4A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

BRIDGE NO. 67
ON N.C. 903 OVER COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3699
FIGURE 2A
LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS BRIDGE
LOOKING NORTH ACROSS BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 67
ON N.C. 903 OVER CORARIE CREEK
SATMPSON COUNTY
R-3699
FIGURE 2B
STRUCTURE PROFILE - WEST SIDE
STRUCTURE PROFILE - EAST SIDE
IN PA 3-- 19, --gs
?;? a/L AA. -36. an\. 19_.

BRI NO. 67
a. k ;? \a
?7 A k ??
"Ap -ti--r ? J
South
ChRiver•
. moo'
1,.
1525
SA!?HS POND
S
?-?
1529
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
S A M P S, O N,
p.
L_

4
MW= CAROLINA MPARTMNT OF TRANWORTATION
DWMN OF ZG"AT8
PRORM DEVSIA XMfr AND
'cpr op *µae •`e Mgvmomma,%L ANALYSIS W"CS
BRIDGE NO. 67
NC 903 OVER COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3699
DETOUR ROUTES
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE 6

United States Department of the In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 14, 2000
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
r
r
r
?
r
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
O
?- r
SEP I
Thank you for your July 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Sampson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3698 Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp;
2. B-3699 Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek; and,
3. B-3514 Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be

1

avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Roseboro, Dobbersville, and Ingold 7.5
Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the ,
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in ,
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action. ,
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 o s of ,
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). ,
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effor t be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to. ,
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be .
explored at the outset.
.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Sampson County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the .
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on .
Ah
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext.-32.
Sincerely,
.Z62-
ee
Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.oti
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC**
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
Nonvascular. Plants
Rock gnome-lichen Gymnoderma lineare
Endangered
SAMPSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator
' Alligator mississippiensis T S/A
Rafinesque
s bi -eared bat
g
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raflnesquii
FSC**
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Invertebrates
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Butternut
White wicky Juglans cinerea FSC

Pondbeny Kalmia cuneata FSC

Pondspice Lindera melissifolia Endangered

Carolina bogmint Litsea aestivalis
Macbridea caroliniana FSC
FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna _
FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii FSC*
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Northern pine snake Picoides borealis Endangered

Carolina gopher frog Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Rana ca
it
i FSC**
p
o cap
to FSC
Vascular Plants
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
January 1 S, 1999 Page 40 of 49
Ah
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
IT 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request /09_ ZS -Oa
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use T? ?? n? 2 p n/pM?n County And State os0..2 &t2 , C
PART l II (To be completed by Federal Agency) site Site site site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Q ,
B. Total Acres.To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site • ?3 1.03
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
^ Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
i 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.. Protection Provided.By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
?
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assgsment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
Site Selected: Date Of Selection
Reason For Selection:

/0
J0
O
0 0 v
p 6o
?b &0 60
I Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Y W^?
Z
u
,yam ,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 5, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic reservation Officer
Re: B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 Over Young's Swamp, ER 01-7260,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, ER 01-7261,
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Rd) over South River,
ER 01-7262, Bridge Improvements, Sampson County
Thank you for your memorandum of July 28, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/7334763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 [phone] • 7154801

Federal Aid ?BRZ-903(2) TIP #13-3699 County Sampson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek
On July 7, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
F1 there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
cl, tom,,..

FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
SHPO
Date
Date
Vi
State Historic Preservation Officer
1
i
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIOT
?IE C i //
Y
MEMORANDUM: Septembe 19, 2000
TO: Melba McGee m rs' *.
fog
FROM: David Harrison,
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Prod - 692 and B-
3693 (Robeson County); and B-3514, B-3698 and B-3 Sampson County)
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of-way, the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
cc: William D. Gilmore
?m
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1614
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 5090 RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Drew Joyner, Project Engineer
DOT
FROM: Stephen Hall S f
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Projects, Sampson County
REFERENCE: B-3514, B-3699
B-3514
The Nature Conservancy has a preserve, known as the Daughtry Tract, located along the
South River on the north side of SR 1246. This property may adjoin the DOT right-of-
way at the proposed bridge crossing and may therefore be affected by the project. We
request that TNC be consulted about possible impacts. Please contact Linda Gintoli at:
TNC-SE Coastal Plain Office
Building 4 Unit E
2725 Old Wrightsboro Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-762-6277 (w)
B-3699
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for the following rare species.
of aquatic animals from the reach of Great Coharrie Creek in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project:
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), currently state listed as Special Concern
and proposed for state listing as Threatened
• Pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), state listed as Special Concern
• Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis), considered significantly rare in North
Carolina
• Broadtail madtom (Noturus n. sp. 1), state listed as Special Concern
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1615
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Drew Joyner, Project Engineer
Page 2
August 25, 2000
• Santee chub - Coastal Plain population (Cyprinella zanema), state listed as Special Concern
In order to minimize impacts to these species, we recommend that all best management practices for
the control of erosion and sedimentation be strictly.followed. All concrete used in the project should
be fully cured before being allowed to come into contact with the water.
/sph
Joy r-jtl?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
A
NCDENR

August 8, 2000
SE? 7 ??;?
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, OJT W 3S
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis i 0EVIZ
Through: ?'dhn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: John He
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Sampson County Bridge Replacement Projects:
B-3698,'Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
B-3699,. Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Great Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South
River.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated 28 July 2000 (received August.4, 2000), in which
you requested scoping comments for the referenced bridge projects within the Cape Fear River Basin. .
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that Bridge No. 15 will span Young's Swamp. The DWQ index
number for the stream is 18-74-19-1. Bridge No. 67 traverses the Great Coharie Creek; the DWQ stream
index number is 18-68-1. Bridge No. 100 crosses the South River; the DWQ stream index number is 18-
68-12-(Q.5). All of the streams are classified as C Swamp.
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. In planning documents and preliminary designs, NCDOT should consider the possibility that buffer
rules could be implemented in the future within the Cape Fear River Basin.

B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
D. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.

1621. Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500/9 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
IN
s
r
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
08!10/00
Page 2
'
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control 1
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet. ,
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will 1
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. ,
0. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it '
should be countersunk, by a minimum of one foot, to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic '
organisms passage through the crossing. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
disequilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill i
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culvverts
or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent
constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands. i
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is ,
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey i
Activities.

I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC'2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
i
requ
red for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost .
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. ,
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
•
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification applicatiodwill need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.

L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, ,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval. i
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met .
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone]. .

Pc: D?yid T' Y, Corps of Engineers
'4WZ
Afa el!I
, USFWS .
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
.Central Files

$$$SYSTIME$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$USERNAME$$$$ 09/08/99
[ OJ
TR: E7CTO 8.1281301 B-
3699
0 0 0 O<
a tint
o ?Z
O T z
r
m -0
i mD
--z 0 _I O Q O O 2 A , / cn
z a?
`r m C
2 '! ? 1
10 < -1
--- ,
II II II II II II ?' /? Q
C N N N N a N E3' '/ C.. 1 ?? i
10 0
p
CA)
•o m
m r I I `` o f `? r4P'-`? '
-I r r I I -1 Vl? / 4
O? o Dzczi - I I I ?s -
M:z m== II
MO O Zoo I I I
2m D
`gy m -n I
c ?m? .bb
m m m
z o?? I
CA n 0 0 y
Q m? I O
? I I I x
m to
s I a O O 1?? V ??
II N IJ I ^I ® It
O II 11 '- I? I m •'
moo
7 w Z ® ?
mm3 I I b
M I ? p y
I
m m n
?4 ?
V V ~
o a o „°" ?1 „'C? O
w N? ?mx? a
b0 ? ar ? ? ran ?] O
AIM
17n a b n
M m
m ? ? II
?-r I M
y ? I
y ? g ° I Iasi .I
© . I I .
x ?4
oom
ti CC
I lI I N I W ?, ?
ss?
0
y I
cc; CA)
""?? y h ? NO I I I f„ ?p ? -A^
0 8 _ O ITV
w N ? -SO
x ?N I I
v
N I I I
N $$? I I
n? N ?"?i I I I I I
y ? ?? ? I I I I
q b I I I i I m ? ??
y :b Q R. ,? C" I I I I
a y I I I
? ?? LL-
r
3s$$S%SRffislM $$$sOGNa?s??s?sSa$S?s?s 5/28/99

.F T 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
I I 1 1
1
.I
1
1
1
1 1 1
I I 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I i
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
I
1
1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ?
1

' 7 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 Z
1 y
1
1 1 1
1 1 1
i l i 1 1 1
1 1 1
l l l 1
1
l
O
a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C
Z
I t l
l l l
l
?
-- 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
og?
H
a ? O
um xod
D Z
1NIO d 30NIH i SZ?
A P
1 -?
G1 C
1 s
> N
>
1 °
1 m°
1 G) c
C
1 A
M
1 °D

tmil Z r?
• ° p,

•iN UP m• m•
+
1
0
z
ND
O
DN
D
O < ao
M
z z
v
m
z
-10= °a oa

OD
?O
a
my
<mD
m
y
-4">
'ly
MW
A x
A I Z D j
II O
?? H O
Om
I
MM-1
NOO
m0
mm
mm
t l
ICA

o z
Z 0 T
ga o ooo rn j 9 m
M
? M D<o ?a mo O
Z°O -
-I p r? 30
0 I o °i avy or
m?Z o -4
^?-°Z o II °
O a p z
c^
V•DN r
Z r w0 ?m 0
:
> M °.
VooD Z _ -.
Z

°+
O
0w O Y
IY
[1 c
-0 N o?
O M
, H a

D M
N

M
O
to
N
i m
?Z
(?
<m
?
r ma
+
e
I
w

R'
A

m

a

<
m

o
a m

o
mr

rn
tail A D

t 70
m -1 r

IS

?

m
f
o
C
HINGE POINT _ .} .
FOR FILLS (n

M c rr
a
OD
M a a
° O
M
m
O

P a
A
_

O
V
7 I Z
Z
D c
A

z
v o 0
i
W

z
? o

av +i9 i9 vav rav av
i0
=v T O
mmv ? O
my Di0
mi9 ?yyi0
s
9 DyO
9
9 H
O 1'
N 2
DD

<•0 i+<

2fDa +D

?DV D<

ma DD

m
DD
my
ya mom oa z
a.. y
as as
DO
pX rm?
D• m0
X rDD
Dpm DO
px DO
pX
m• m a m D m m
DW Oi
a
?
? a i v m m =
i
m
=
oa rai sa
o
m
D sDV DD °,N +x .,x
m Nm m? N °
r °
r
1
r
= r k

r l
- -
j
mo
m= oai
i ? a0
? = ma
l
mm mo
m0 mo
NO

n fl
rmo
mo
°•
o
n
n
va m z a cz
? ?a ?a
am mmm +Im am am am ?
°> > : m m Z om
Dow
?
fl

D
m z N a a
O m? N
9 o C O
p I\f?a a m y n m

W 2 A? y m 2 ? C
O
D m m +p ja
a
N 9
T
S
M
O O
<
i O C N i
S j r?
?m m rn
.N i 9 m
I
/ m
N
O
m 2
2
m m
P m
m
m w m m
_ m
? .{ C C- N

to
_ .D.I ^
1
? v v
i
m °

D ^I i

2 r
? m v.
N
1
i -4M
0 o

m
N r
i co D
D
? m AN

m
? o D
O

•• m N?
+ A

C i
°
Z
'. mn
r
m m
N
m DIM
O m m
i
2 O
O N
p
z
p
o
m ° c
^' m
a

_
O
.y
y

N
m

i
O
v

i
<
'
0
m
N
N
O
m
SS?SS?S?Y?TIM?SSSSS '-
SS SS o Sa 83SSOGNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
09/26/2002 - Reduced PDH on Parcel 1, Increased construction easement.

m
fx{
R Y 1
I

b

m
N

m

+
W O/ G3/ GG

e o +
m j
m 6

O 33 LOCATION (LT,RT, OR CL)
E e E i,
Ib' T gg
ri > A Y
V m a u FROM
I
Fi
;
a
u
a
TO STRUCTURE NO. Q$

$

+
E
'b'

+ +
o
? E

+ o

?,,
O

o

v

TOP ELEVATION Z
r

3388 i

yI

Ty

a
+ o y? ?' Z
8
?
? Ito Z
" to
INVE1fF ELEVATION
?i
?
O s b E e
H $

? INVERT ELEVATION .

T
Z
Z
Z
Z
SLOPE CRITICAL a

?
?
m ? ? ? ? N ? 1
?? N O O H y?
?
R
y
1 1 I 1 Z Y ±

1 1 1 1 I
t
13

a
.0" fi
L P '' J' ,064 N

7??liii O
?j .064 i ± m
v
m
x .064 ? $$ m e IS^
Q

.479 4
A
0 I CIF.
.079

d o o m = .109 O I 1 Li .

.tog
B
r Z 1S SIDE DRAM PIPE
!p
^
1B' WE DRAIN PIPE r
? y
ppqq
S C 2r SIDE DRAM PRE 10-4 y

1 ?

?

1

S
L
RCl.

?
y y
d i7

?

? C t=i
Iw
V?

O
?§
0
0-4
FFF
?) PER EACH (0'TMW 5.01 FRQUANTITIES
r_
. y
r 5.0' THRU 10.0' > j C • TOTAL LF. FOR PAY l+] r?
Colo olo iI Z QUANTITY
COL
1
y
AND ABOV
10.0' E v + .3 XC OL1 ?7 ppp
ppp
r 1 Q
O C.B. STD. $40.01 OR STD. $40.02
!'; W
^
4
,
?
^

Soto
•
a 'wb' D.1. STD. 840.14 OR STD. $•10.
15

D.I. FRAME i GRATE BID. $40.16
1 I I 1
M.D.1. TYPE 'A' SID. 840.17 OR 940.26
TYPE 'B' SAD. 840.18 OR $4037
M.O.I. TYPE 'D' STD. 810.19 OR 8403$
C
1 1 I I M.D.I. FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 81032

M.D.I. FRAME WIT H TWO GRATES STD. 940.22
1 1 1 1 S
M.D.I. (H.S.) FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 840.24
Imo./?
1 I 1 g
rY M.D.I. (H.S.) FRAME WITH TWO GRATES STD. 84034

B
STD
840
91 OR $40
82
J (I?1
.
.
.
.
.
1 1 1 1
!.
O

1 1 1 1 ? >

1 1
1
1
O sL
?}±?j
1 I I 1 ? S?
1 1 1 1 ? y
ti
1 1 I 1

1 1
1
1
Q
O CORR. STEEL ELBOWS NO. B SIZE
?9
i
?

CONC. COIIARe CL. B' C.Y. STD 840.7

CONC. & BRICK PIPE PLUG, C.Y. SM. 840.71
PIPE REMOVAL UN.FT.
m
O
_ `m
O
_ o
O
_ m
O
_

Bii mks?u ??OZP
LC?' OO _ O_ m
m .
z

`f' W

ggg
S
?? x ?41? ?
S? (4
0 A .0gn 09125/200210:59:40 AN
$$$$$3$BSSE$S2%$$DGNt$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 6/4/99
2 8
F* C n2 H N r
r?
?J
Cc'
C
y
C). C w
F?
® b
=1 Lot
O
WAz
t-?n
b
? ICJ J
O
10 10 A O O W A
i
C
W
M
W
z
0

?^
C y
m
r
ri-
?n
Vi=i ? O? y y
G1
D
Z

Z
r
-?
O?

10
C
O
+
O?
+
p
N
D
? v ?
w'° 0
-i o, m z c ?
O o °o ?
?
? ?fs'1 Om ? r p p Z
+

?n
NO ? I N 1 I N O N
0 71
Z m

nc?

1
o
t
o
I
t
I
1
1 v
OVA
0 0

I
1
I
?
l
I
V W
CD V1
P
+
W
O
tOn N ?"? ? 1 1 ? VOi A Q
c
c
1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ?
j
m
REVISIONS
i 07/1912002 - Revised easement labels
! 09/2612002 - Eliminated PDE on Parcel 1 to the right, Added construction easement.

II It It II R II ITT
I

Qt?? RtQ? t
to it 5t
ze!Q
Co Di
i o
O I ?I
,66'69£
3 A0.51.LL.N i0 664
T
j ? T I
I
a ?I
crni I
a?
T
SirQ+
bi
r ?? k v M
a

om
AR?R
r
1
o? .'r>
O tp
y} A
Qo
w r
$w
0
r!
1
O ?
1
i
m /
T
m /
m
i
trt
i
0
n
$?
T
? g

I
m E
3 ?
Ir 1
15
2 m
g?
I
III
it
?I
I
g
I?
N
i+
04
?? ?5t1 tl
, ?X? 1
m ?-I?oD?I I
O R If 11 R p? I
' ?' 84N
2
2 Z
co
? I
? Q rn l
1>
t ?
rn ?~ sp
mZ?
IAN
> ? rn
,Zb•8b = A313
d 00'00+9 OOZ-Il
LI' £+ZI Z01-19
u

// V /
C5
3.9'8
15
lia.a o
0-011o- Al
1!4
O
Ali, rn
V?Yg p
0!V N
go!
VI
?
X0`7 ?
e
r v

°m
I m
b yAy :N ;o?
-4 2 =p n s r-

I Co ^?
n VN
S Tm?
p p
C D
'
y'v 1
CrT
I m co O
rnl

O 1
m rn
/ M
O
(? (n
O

/

.U S,y C?
0 i Z y D N?1
A 9
GO~ 0A0 O
2 t
(A rn
M

I K O M

:

Ad
K

9
W i

°~

12
=s

r

+ I
d H cI>Epm
n zr-
-4

M

C)>
?d7
f7l
D
25 m

sesroo o0'a
"'--
I?

m
b
?o b zK

? Z O
7.115.51___ Z ?"?i

z _
z N
r o
x
yz odd ? o?°•? Q ?? IQ a?
c?a 10O 7 c >?a I??II
N ? Q
w
,p m U
??