20081257 Ver 1_Reports_20020228

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.45 ON SR 1110
OVER CHOOWATIC CREEK
, BERTIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

.;
,.
~ -
TIl' Na. B-4026
State Project No. 8.2010401
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Issued: February 2002
v~ct H~efti ~*~
a ~is
,r yr
°. 2
c°
~nl~Fh~Of IRPN~I~~`
FEB ? Q ~.~,,...
i i i t

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........

Table of Contents
..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ..................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................2
' 2.1 SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................3
2.2. I Surface Water Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... .. 3

' 2.2.2 Best Usage Classifrcation ................................................................................................................................
2.2.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................. .. 4
.. 4
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... ..4
' 3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................................
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................. ..5
.. 6
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Brownwater Subtype) ............................................................. .. 6
' 3.1.2 Successional Wetland ......................................................................................................................................
3.1.3 Pine Plantation ................................................................................................................................................ ..6
.. 7
3.1.9 Agriculture ....................................................................................................................................................... ..7
3.1.5 Maintained Yard .............................................................................................................................................. .. 7
3.1.6 Maintained/Disturbed ...................................................................................................................................... ..7
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................................................... ..7
3.3 HABITAT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ .. 8
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................................................................ ..9
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ....................................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters .......................................................................................................................... .. 9
' 4.1.2 Permits• ............................................................................................................................................................. ..9
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition ........................................................................................................................................... II
4.1.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................ I1

' 4.1.4.1 Avoidance ...............................................................................................................................................................
4.1.4.2 Minimization ........................................................................................................................................................... I1
I1
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ......................................................................................................................... 12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................................ 12
' 4.2.2 Federal Species ojConcern and State Listed Species ..................................................................................... 14
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
' Figure 2. Habitat Within Project Area
6.2 WETLAND DATA FORMS AND RATING WORKSHEETS

1
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page ii

LIST OF TABLES
' TABLE 1. HABITAT WITHIN PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................7
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR BERTIE COUNTY ................................................................ I2
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR BERTIE COUNTY ....................................................................I4
t

1
0

i

D

L
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page iii
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in southern Bertie County (Figure 1).
' 1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 45 on State Road 1100, over the
Choowatic Creek. The project length is approximately 1,480.00 ft (451.10 m).
' 1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources
that may be impacted by the proposed action. Recommendations are made for measures that will
minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
1 the recommended project area. If the project area and criteria change, additional field
investigations may need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology

Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: Quitsna (1981) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map, Quitsna (1994) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200). Water resource information was obtained from Department of Environment and Natural
Resources publications (DENR, 2001). Federal and State protected species information was gathered
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
LandMark Design Group environmental scientists Wendee Smith and Brett Feulner conducted field
' surveys along the proposed alignment on July 11, 2001. James Shern, Environmental Project Manager,
subsequently performed an additional site visit during the week of August 27, 2001 for quality
assurance purposes. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active
search and capture, visual observations, and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
' scat, tracks, and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed utilizing the criteria
prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).

1

__ --_ _ __
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 1

1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
d
B
S
i
E
l S
i
i
1) Investigator: Wen
ee
.
m
th,
nvironmenta
c
ent
st,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
'
2 Investi ator:
g Brett M. Feulner, Environmental Scientist,

r
Education: LandMark Design Group Inc., June 2001 to Present
B.S. Forest Management:
North Carolina State University, 2001
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University Forest Nutrition Co-op,
Raleigh, June 2000 to October 2000
District Forester, Resource Management Service Inc., New Bern, January 1999
to December 1999
3) Investigator: James F. Shern, Senior Environmental Scientist
LandMark Design Group Inc., November 1996 to Present
Education B.S. Forestry
North Carolina State University, 1992

1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Area denotes the area
bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area within a 0.50 mi (0.81
km) radius of the project area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The topography in this section
of Bertie County is characterized as level or gently sloping. Project elevation is approximately 10.00 ft
(3.05 m) above mean sea level (msl).

North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' 'The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 2

2.1 Soils
Five soil phases occur within the project area: Augusta fine sandy loam, Bibb and Johnston loams,
Roanoke fine sandy loam, Wahee sandy loam, and Wickham fine sandy loam. Soil information was
' obtained from the Soil Survey of Bertie County, North Carolina, which was published by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
' • Augusta fine sandy loam (non-hydric) is a nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil found in
shallow depressions and on low, smooth ridges of stream terraces. Permeability is moderate,
shrink-swell capacity is low, and the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1.00 to 2.00 ft
' (0.30 to 0.61 m). Wetness is the major limitation for this soil type.
• Bibb and Johnston loams (hydric) are poorly to very poorly drained soils found on flood plains.
Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid and the seasonal high water table varies from 1.50
ft (0.46 m) below the surface. These soils are subject to frequent flooding of brief duration.
Wetness and flooding are the limiting factors for this soil type.
• Roanoke fine sand lY oam (hydric) is poorly drained soil found on nearly level broad flats, in
slight depressions, and drainage ways on stream terraces. Permeability is slow, shrink-swell
potential is moderate, and the seasonal high water table is within 1.OOft (0.30 m) of the surface.
The major limitations of this soil type are wetness, slow permeability, and flooding.
~ • Wahee sandy loam (non-hydric) is a nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil found on low,
smooth ridges, in slight depressions, and in drainage ways on stream terraces. Permeability is
slow, shrink-swell potential is moderate, and the seasonal high water table occurs 0.50 and 1.50
ft (0.15 to 0.46 m) below the surface. Wetness, slow permeability, and low soil strength are
major limitations for this soil type.
• Wickham fine sand to n-
(no hydric) with 0.00 to 2.00 percent slopes is a well-drained soil
found on smooth, low ridges on stream terraces. Permeability is moderate and there are no
major limitations for this soil type.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources within the project area. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water
systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources. Surface water resources and
minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Surface Water Characteristics
1 Choowatic Creek will be the only surface water resource within the project area. The section of the
creek in the project area is located in sub-basin 03-02-10 of the Roanoke River Basin. The average
baseflow width is approximately 30.00 ft (9.14 m). Average depth is approximately 3.00 ft (0.91 m).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 3

The Choowatic Creek's substrate is composed of sand and flow was moderate during site inspection.
Water clarity was fair.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. The
classification of Choowatic Creek in the project area is C Sw (NCDWQ Roanoke River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan, Draft Copy, 2001). Class C water denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival and other uses.
The Sw classification is a supplemental water classification denoting swamp waters that have a
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated abasin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in Basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the Basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There is no BMAN station located on the Choowatic Creek within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the
project area.
Many Benthic macroinvertebrates have life cycle stages that can last from six months to one year.
Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill may not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, therefore, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity, and the biomass are
I reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
In North Carolina, point source dischargers are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Permits are required for all point source dischargers. There
are no point source dischargers on Choowatic Creek within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) upstream of the
project area.
2.2.4 EcologicalImpacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement at a new location usually results in greater impacts. Usually, project construction does
not disturb the entire right-of--way; therefore, actual impacts will be less than reported in Table 1.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 4
~II

Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from demolition debris and/or erosion resulting from
1 vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flows from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to increased sun and wind exposure resulting from
streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading from the stormwater runoff of areas disturbed during construction,
and/or
6. Increased input of toxic compounds from demolition, construction, toxic spills, and highway
runoff.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include,
but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to prevent water resource contamination by
toxic substances during the demolition and construction phases must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between flora and fauna within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and
fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Subsequent references to
the same organism will include the common name only. Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al.
(1980), Potter et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Fauna observed during the site visits are
denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 5

3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Six distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project area (Figure 2): Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, successional wetland, pine plantation, agriculture, maintained yard, and
maintained/disturbed community. Community boundaries within the project area are well definedas
shown in Figure 2. Faunal species likely to occur within the project area will exploit all community
types for shelter, foraging opportunities, and/or as wildlife corridors.
1 3.1.1 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest Brownwater Sub e)
( tyP
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest is the most abundant community found in the project
corridor. The community is present along both sides of Choowatic Creek.
The canopy of the bottomland hardwood forest is composed of red maple (Ater rubrum), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black willow (Salix nigra), and American
1 elm (Ulmus americana). The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees as well as swamp
cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), willow oak (Quercus phellos), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
privet (Ligustrum sinense), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). The vine layer of this community is comprised of greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Wildlife species associated with this community type include white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus), rat snake* (Elaphe obsoleta) Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Avian species associated with this community type include: great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), belted
kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), barred owl (Strix varia), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), and tufted titmouse (Bacolophus bicolor).
.1.2 Successional Wetland
3
' The successional wetland is adjacent to State Road 1100 on the northwest quadrant. This community is
composed of saplings and shrubs. Saplings that are present include sweet-gum, black willow, swamp
cottonwood, and red maple. The shrub layer was composed of rush (Juncus sp.), and giant cane.
Wildlife species utilizing the successional wetland includes those same species that occupy the
surrounding bottomland hardwood forest.

1
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
1 The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 6

3.1.3 Pine Plantation
The pine plantation is located north of the Bottomland Hardwood Forest in the northwest quadrant of
the project area. The canopy of this community is composed of planted loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The
understory is composed of privet, ironwood, and red maple. Wildlife species utilizing the pine
plantation includes those same species that occupy the surrounding Bottomland hardwood forest.
3.1.4 Agriculture
An agriculture field is located west of State Road 1100. This community is composed primarily of a
large-scale agricultural system used for the cultivation of crops. Faunal species frequenting the
agricultural field will be largely those species inhabiting Bottomland hardwood forest.
3.1.5 Maintained Yard
The maintained yard community is located in the northwest portion of the project area. The community
is comprised mostly of grass. Wildlife species utilizing the maintained/disturbed community includes
those same species that occupy the surrounding forest.
3.1.6 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulders adjacent to State Road 1100 within the
project corridor. The community is composed of clover (Trifolium sp.), fescue (Festuca sp.), plantain
(Plantago sp.), and Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica). Faunal species associated with the
maintained/disturbed community includes least shrew (Crypotis parva), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
1 3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Choowatic Creek, is located within the project area. Physical characteristics
of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities. Duckweed (Lemna sp.) is present within Choowatic Creek throughout the project area.
Vegetation along the bank of the creek is typical of the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
including bald cypress, swamp black gum, sweet-gum, and sycamore.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in the Choowatic Creek include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (L. macrochirus), and yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis). Invertebrates that would be
present include various species of caddisfly (Trichoptera), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), crayfish
(Decapoda), dragonfly* (Odonata), and damselfly (Odonata).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 7

3.3 Habitat Summary
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resourc es described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological .
' functions. Table 1 quantifies the habitat communities within the project area.
Table 1. Habitat Within Project Area.
Community Surface Water Wetland Upland Total _ _
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood - 0.63 ac (0.25 ha) 0.28 ac (0.11 ha) 0.91 ac (0.36 ha)
Successional Wetland = 0.94 ac (0.38 ha) -
Pine Plantation 0.27 ac (0.11 ha) 0.94 ac (0.38 ha)
0.27 ac (0.11 ha)
Agriculture Field - - 0.73 ac (0.30 ha) 0.73 ac (0.30 ha)
0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
Maintained Yard 0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
= -
Maintained/Disturbed 1.09 ac (0.44 ha) 1.09 ac (0.44 ha)
Community
Choowatic Creek 0.26 ac (0.11 ha) - - 0.26 ac (0.11 ha)
Total 0.26 ac (0.11 ha) 1.57 ac (0.63 ha) 2.50 ac (1.01 ha) 4.33 ac (1.75 ha)
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 45 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat
for some faunal species. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that
impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
' activities may repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
scouring, siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from project-related work may affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these
construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
' Im acts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scourin of
P g
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
' vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which in excessive amounts
can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms may also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. Some of these organisms may be slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils,
toxic compounds, and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 8

processes increase turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside clearing also leads to more direct
sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact some species. Based on
the potential for increased sedimentation, it is recommended that silt curtains be used during
construction.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
' This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues:
"Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined
in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
1 4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach was used. Hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and certain specific hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland. Wetlands are present within the project area in the form of a Bottomland Hardwood
Forest and a successional wetland. Vegetation within the Bottomland Hardwood Forest includes
bald cypress, swamp black gum, red maple, sweet-gum, sycamore, swamp cottonwood, willow
oak, and black willow. Vegetation in the successional wetland includes sweet-gum, swamp
' cottonwood, black willow, red maple, rush, and giant cane. The area of the wetland is 1.57 ac
(0.63 ha).
Choowatic Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). Choowatic Creek covers 0.26 ac (0.11 ha) and 210.00 if (64.01 lm) of the project area.
Discussion of the biological, physical, and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the project area
are presented in previous sections of this report.
' 4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
1 construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge
of protecting the water quality of public water resources.

North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 9

The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is administered by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). The NCDCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to
property, public health and natural environment. A CAMA permit from the NCDCM is required if the
project meets all of the following conditions:
1. Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
2. Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
3. Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
4. Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
A determination is needed from the NCDCM whether the project necessitates a CAMA permit. If a
CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit will be required.
If a CAMA Major Development permit is required, the permit application will also serve as an
' application for other state permits and for permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) as
required by Section 10 the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is likely
that the USAGE would authorize the project under a Section 404 General Permit 291. The state
permits include;
1. Authorization to excavate and/or fill;
2. Authorization into lands covered by water; and,
3. Authorization under 401 Water Quality Certification.
If the project is determined not to require a CAMA Major Development Permit, then bridge
replacement would require authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a)
(23)) for all impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by
another federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to
the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A Nationwide Permit 33 may be required if the construction plans require a temporary structure that is
not covered in the NEPA document.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: 8-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 10

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny a water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
"Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401
Certification from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition
Bridge demolition information will be provided in the NEPA Document.
4.1.4 Miti ation
g
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the
United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
' of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
1 Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "Waters of
the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control
BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization
of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 11

4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation may be required for unavoidable adverse impacts
that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States." Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever
practicable. Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23,
however final mitigation requirements rest with the COE. Impact thresholds for mitigation are as
follows:
• 0.10 to 1.00 ac (0.04 to 0.40 ha) of wetlands impacts may require mitigation;
• 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) or more of wetland impacts will require mitigation;
• 150.00 linear ft (45.72 m) or more of stream impacts will require mitigation.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of flora and fauna have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 22, 2001, the FWS lists
one federally protected species for Bertie County (Table 2). A brief description of the characteristics
and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species of Bertie County.
Scientific Name _ C_om_mon Name _ 'Federal Sta_t_us
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker ____ Endangered
Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

1
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
I The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 12

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
' Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
' The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred form New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
' The adult RCW has a lama e that is entirel black and white exce t for small red streaks on the sides
P g Y P
' of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast
and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek
patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
' The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50.00 percent pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least
30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.00 ac (202.34 ha). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12.00 to 100.00 ft (3.66 to
30.48 m) above the ground and average 30.00 to 50.00 ft (9.14 to 15.24 m) high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The incrustation of sap is
believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers
usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from
three to five eggs. All members of the colony share the raising of the young. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The habitat that is critical for the red cockaded woodpecker is not present. There is a pine plantation
present within the project area, however the stand is not mature enough, and the understory is too thick.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and no records
of existing red-cockaded woodpecker occurrences were found within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project
area. Thus, no impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project construction.

North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 13

' 4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally listed or proposed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and therefore
should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is
' under consideration for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In
addition, organisms, which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the N.C, Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
' There are four Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Bertie County. A survey for these
species was not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
' NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on June 12, 2001 revealed no federal species of
concern within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. The NCNHP database does indicate that the
Rafinesque's big-eared bat and the cerulean warbler are located within the project region.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Bertie County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habitat
1 Statas
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC No
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR Yes
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR Yes
Orconectes virginiensis Chowanoke crayfish SR Yes
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
' "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally
more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 14

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Basinwide Information Management System [Online]. Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reports.html [2001, June 28].
' Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
i Printing Office, Washington D.C.
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
List of Active Permits, [Online]. Available: http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xls.
[2001, June 28]
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEHNR. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEHNR. 1995b. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Division of
Environmental Management.
NCDEM. March 2000 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
NCDENR. 2001. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, Draft Copy.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 1 S

USDA. 1990. Soil Survey of Bertie County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
' US Fish and Wildlife Service list of Threatened and Endangered Species in Bertie County, [Online].
Available: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntYlist/bertie.html [2001, June 28)
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
1
1

1

1
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4026 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 16

ri~uicr; i
BERTIE COUNTY
. .~
`5,
'` • ~ 1 1112
j
1
.2 2.0
M
1109
_ ~ -f~~ -
.~ ?~
ti 1152 "! ~ '`~ -
.2
~ '~' - -
1150 ,~ - ._.._ ~`.
- 1114 ,
~, - ...
1151 `' ~ 3
3~8
.; ., - s
~ ~ 1113 ~~ ~~
~•~ m
~`~ Windsor
~ _ _. ~
~~
- _~'
' _. - /
-~•- -- <
` ,•.
B-402 6 ~ BAP
,?
1104
3 '
F~ F
.)
2•Z •3 ~ A
Q:~ ~
,~+ _..-~•- _ _. - ~ 1102
...._. - - ~- c~e~ v ~
1100 ~ • _
- •J 1103
r-
\ ~ I~ i-
., ~
1l
`~, i
llos
~r Grabtown ~
~8
~t
Ro
- - - .. ~ilao •.. 9~;Sr
St. Francis
~.~• F Ch' 1.) 1105
i
` 1106 `~6
'1 ~ ~'
F ~
1523
._ 1548
3 .5 _ - •-
1107 ~ 1526 ~'~
Q
a

;~: ~~

1

®~~D~~LJIJLJ®0~® ~

n~~~D~u~nnoo ~
~
~
}~ '17

~^
_ 3
- IIl N
O~ O O ~
1 V
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
° ~`~ ~-~ ~ ~o-~~o D ~ ~` ~
v
'
o ~ ~ ° r ~
n
. ~ ~- ~- .~
~ ~D -• ~ ~ N

~' ~ ~" ~ ~
00
~ ~ ~D ~

~°
a X33

~ O ~
~•
~
~ o
~
a ~ ~
as
~
_
~,
<
~
~~ ~ ~ C
O o o v w
~D
`^

a °
N ~
a ~ ~ ~
~. D N

~D Q~
a ~
•
.~

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
% 'Y ', ,,
'y c~ ~I -~
OAiA FORM
RCUTIxE ~ETCAxO OETERMIxATt0-I
- (1987 CCE ve t I~ar+ds 0 e (i ne a c i on Harxta U
Project/Site: ~i ~- 1 ~ ~~ Date: ~, ~ II. ;.rte:
~
.
~
%'.
~~~'
l
C
Applicant/Owner: .
.`.
ool
y: _
t
Investigator: ~NA r~>~. ~ ~..~^ :'i ' i'~; i ~ ~` r - F ~ [^,e~ s' '/
State: ~V L
Do Norma[ Circtas tances exist on the site? ~Yes~ No Coaru~ity ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 7es !to Trarsect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Tes po Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dorr+inant Plant Species Stratua Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator

r~ /
a?~ iv+~~ I
z. /
om
~-~
~~-
lo.
n
/
3. (V ~).SS ~ ,
S~ n ~~ 11.

S. ~ 13.
6. t..
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Oomirtant Species that are OBL, FACV and/or FAC: l',~
(excluding FAC-): ~~~~/,
Rey-arks: ~ ~ ~_ ~ '
H7DROlOGT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): vetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
_ Stream, Cake, or Tide Gauge Pri~rary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _ _ Irxr~dated
_
Other Saturated in Upper tZ inches
_
No Recorded Data Available water Marks
_ v" Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observa[ions• _/Orainagr Patterrss in vetlar+ds
' ~ ~ Secondary lndicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface lJater: / J /"' (in.) Oxidized Root [hamels in Upper 12 Inches

i
Pi ~
.~ I~~
i ,/ Ltater-Stainec Leaves
local Soil Survey Data
n
t:
Depth to Fret Voter n:)
( _
' _ FAC-Neutral lest ~I~f~
Depth to Saturated Soil: //-~ (in.) _ Other (EzpCain in Remarks)

Remarks: '

SOILS
Map Uni t Name ~ ~ /~ "
(Series and Phase): , / b Drainage Class:
_ field Observations
7azonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Ha ~
Peed Type. lies No
Profile Description:
Depth Hatrix Color Hottle Colors Hottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (HUnselt Hoist) _(Hurssell Hoist) Atcaidance/Contrast Structure, etc:
A ~ i~ c',-
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concreticru
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in.Sandy Soils
"Su[fidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Hoisture Regime Listed on local Hydric Soils Lisi
Reducing Conditions • _ Listed on Rational Hydric Soils List
G[eyed or Lou-Chromes Colors Ocher (Explain. in R~erturksJ
Remarks:
" VETLAHD DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle). ~ -- (Circle)
L)ecland Hydrology Present? 7e~ No `~
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sa.~r+pling~Point Vi chin a L7etland? ~ No
f
Remarks:
~J ~ ~,
Approved by NoUSACE 3/92

C

DATA fORH
RCU7INE vETLAHO DETERNINA7ION
- (1987 CCE vec[ands Oelineacian Marxist)
pp
Project/Sitr ~ D - ~'9 ~ 4 ~)
Date• J u ~7 ~~ t d~=/
Applicant/O+,+ncr: Coulty: /~c~-~=c
r
Investigator: ~1~r ~~~. ~ ,'~--- ~ ~/¢'~"~f "rJ ~L-ic-~ State: 0~/C-
Do Norma[ Circcrsscances exist an the site? ies )fo Coc+sxaiity ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Tes Mo 7rarLSeet I0:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yeas Ho Ploc ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
' YEGETATIOH
.--
C

~~I

ii

1

II OemtnantPlant Species Stratus indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator ~'
1.~~~'i~nlNl~/~ ~ C ~ "~ ~ 9.~~~/G~ {=i~l'Y?,.y",7 r~ ~
~ '~ ~i Cc„i
J
ti ~ ,~
3. (l ~ r~ ~~ c.. ~-
t i :' ~~~ ~~' ~~~1 ~ s~ ~

5. ~ ~~"~` ~ ~ S~ ~/L t3.

Percent of Dom(nanc Species that are OBL, FACSi and/or FAC:
(excluding FAC-): ,
Remarks:
HTDROLOGT
Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks):
____ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
' ~ ~/ • .
Depth of Surface eater: ~ (in.)
Depth to fret eater in Pit: ," ` ~ (in:)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ (in.)
Remarks: ~~ WG(~'.) I /S . /~ -~ C
17 ~ Er.c/~/
Vetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Judicators:
I rxnda t ed
~. Satura_ted in Upper t2 inches
Voter Marks
--~prifc tines
/~ Sediment Deposits ~ '
t/ Drainage Patterns in Vetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches
~ Vater-StaineC Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Oata
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Ocher (Eicpfain in Remarks)

SOfIS
Map Unit Name ~ r / //
(Series and Phase): h[~i Drainage Class-
_ ,~ ~ field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup)' Confiria Ha T ~
peed ype. Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Hatrix Color Hottle Colors Hottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Hansel( Hoist) SHunsell Hoist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc:
~~ 1~ _~'3 ~/l~ s /Dye ~/8 ~^~~~/,' ~~`'-/-;` ~~ ~G~l~ ~ ~i~~'~C1~'
r- .. -~ ,
Nydric Soil Indicators:
Histosot - Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Coyer in.Sandy Soils
~Sutfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
/ Aquic Hoisture Regime Listed on local Hydric Soils List
R ing Conditions • _ listed on National Hydric Soils List
- ley~or lav-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain.in Remarks)
Re~rarks: '
-aS?~C :sQ) f -
VETLA7t0 DETERHIHATION
~-
• - ~ - ~ Approved by HOUSACE 3/9Z

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I`dYZ~T -~/P lrGt ~' C~
QafA FOR!1
ROUTINE rrETCAxO OETI:RHfNATION
- (7987 CCE vetlanCs Oefineation Marxsa[)
~
Project/Site: ~/'-~ "~" Oete: \7'V'l~/
! ~{~
~ ~.
Applicant/O~tser: Cc~r~cy- (~-('~~-~7 G
V V l
i
~IC't'~
~ 1
'
~" ~~~~ : ri/~
c
S
gator:
.J
.f
Invest
.,
L I,~,iT
y ~G~l ~
ca
e
-- ,
Do Rorusal Circtsrscances exist on the site? ~es, }fo Corns~ity ID:

Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
TeJS }to _
7ransect ID:
Is the area a potrnLial Problem Area? Tes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
vEGc'TATICII
Qaninanc Plant Species Stractra fndicater Oorninant Plant Species Stracua Indicator
,_ ~~rl v~~a~~ e -err c t~~ ~- 9.
2_ ~PG~ t/NGp~~ ~~ ~~~ ~-- la. .
-T ,
{ hC/ ~
5_ 13_
6. 14_
7. 15.
8. 16
..
Pereenc of Dominant Species chat are OSC,
(excluding FAC-): FACV arc/or FAC:
~/~~~Uiv
Rrarks: - .-- .
HTDROICGT
Recorded Oata (Describe in Re+rarks):
Stream, lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial PhotograFhs
_ Other
No Recorded oata Available
Field Observatior~s:
Oepch of Surface Slater:
Depth to Free eater in Pit:
• Oepch to Saturated Soil:
Re+ssarks:
.~
i
r•
Vectand Hydrology Indicators:
Prica ry Indicators:
_ Irxrx'ated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
/ Voter Narks
Orifc lines
~ Sedic~enc Ocposits
~/ Orairage Patterns in Vetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches
~Vater-Staines leaves
local Soil Survey Oata
_ FAC-Ncvtral Test~~/`f)
Other (Ezp(ain in Remarks)

SOILS
Hap unit Name II' D
~ ~
~
~~
~
5~
~
~ ~O
lr~
(Series and Phase):
/
A
.
,~/ ' !i ~ l
~}
~ Drainage Class:
_ / ~ - Field observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
. Confiria Ma T ~
peed ype. Tes Ho
Profile Oescriotion:
Depth ?fatrix Color Ftottle Colors Hoct[e Texture, Concrctions,
inches Horizon (Ntsxsell }foistL (liunsell !foist) Aba~dance/Contrast Structure, etc:
~, ~ ~ o u~ ~~~ ~ - ~- -
•~~:~; lam
_
~-
.
- ~ -~---
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Hiscic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in.Sandy Soils
'Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic lfoiscure Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils list
Reducing CorKtitions Cisced an National Hydric Soils fist
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Qther (Explain. in Remarks)

L~7lAx9 OETER4IHATIOH -
Kydrophytic Vegetation Present? T No (Circle) ~ - (Circle)
. .
vetland Hydrology Present? Tes Ho -`•~ ._
Hydric Soils Preseric? Yes !:o Is this Sa.~ling~ Point Vichin a vecland? Te Ho
'{
A.:.arks:
Approved E)' HOUSACE 3/92

u

.~__:. s\ J r t^T\?G ~n `tS~; :=.T (=t:1 tiLRSlON) ,
Project Narne: ~`~~{O~G Cour.t.:: ~.~-f-~-~--
iiesrest Road: ~ JJQO Date• i ~~- 1/. ~~-.
s~etland Area (acj: ~'•C3 '~etland Wzd~th (ft):
Na~ae of Evaluator(s) : lti-.~Jp~ ':~,.-~~ ,1?~~~"`" ~«,~!•u~~
tYetland Location: Adiacent Land Use: •
on sound or estuary (Within 1/2 mi upstream,
pond or Ia!ce .ups lope, or radius)
~ on perennial stream _~forested/natural vea. =-~
on intermittent stream i agriculture/L'rDanlzed Sa o
within interstrezm divide impervious surface
other ~ ?,diacent •5necial Na,urzl Areas
So i~l s
Soi 1 Series
_ preQOminan~:~ v`:gr: ;:C
_j (humus, much or pzz:}
- ~re~cminantly mineral
predominantly sa;,•~~

-7 * eshv:ate: b-a_:cis~
sty°~ tccogra^n5'
cite^ed or cha:ineli~~^.
' .peal we~lznd xid~ ? I00 Le_t.
Dominant Vegetation --... _. ... ~~..
(1) ~. ~ o ~ . ~.,,
(3 } ~Ca:
~~oodi-!Q and wetness
~ sec,iper~-~anent 1y to
ae_nanently flooaed o=
i runda t e~
seasonally flooded or
. inundated
inter«tittently floocee cr
te.~ioorar f sar*""ace water
~o-ia;,d T'roe (select oc:e}= r.o evidence cf flveding or
~to:~iand ~ard•,•.•ced :west
sL r= ace riacer
S:~a:~c sorest -
god; =en
Caro! ?na may ~~=;;~_=_ ~c~est
ocos_n _c= =crest
rr i :le Sa. znnah :.p~ezeral Yet Ian1
..esh~•'ater Marsh c~th~r. •
~;he rating spste.,i c~znc. ~a zpplied .c s•zI: cr brac?cish mars has ar
st=eam chac:nels. ;
. DES{ R.~TiNG
i~!TEti STOR.4GL ~ ~-/ x ..vv /c.

5~~~~/SfiOP.ELIIIE ST:SF
L~?ATIO`F c~ ~ -
x
4.00 = ..
1`P• •- _
' . OL LliTA~(T RF?~OS~ AL ~ .3 ~ x 5 .00 = / ~ .

' i~ILTJLIF£ HA5ITAT " x 2.00 = Y - • --
~
= iJATIC LIrE VALUc'
..Q ~_ x 4.00 = ~
' r"".:CREATION/cDUC<.TION .3 :c 1.00 = 3
iFETL 3.~'tD S CO P.B = r `~
' (TOTAL)
add 1 point if in se:ss:t:ve watershed and >i0~ norcpoint'dist?:-hand
.~~; *~+;*+ ~/? mile ups:-ezr•,, t:2slope, er radius.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,__Ls~J c•~•-^T~TG ~n=ZS~~T (Ct:'i tiEZSiON),
project NacZe: ~ ~/'o ''-~ CoLnt_:: ~r~f~K
Newest Road: Sn (~Db Date: ''rJ'~ (V.2.~~~
Wetland Area .(ac): b•+y °Netland Wid h (ft}:
Mane of Evaluator(s) : i~.~ re~..t_, ~ -J l?_-P ty ~v~~t.~
Net land Location: Adiacent Land Use: •
on sound or estuary (Within 1/2 mi upstream,
pond or Iak° u~slope, or radius)
/n perennial stream ~ forested/natural veo. 3} ;
on intermittent stream ~ agriculture/urbanized s•:~
within interstrean divide impervious surface a
other ~ Adjacent •5~ecial Na~ural Areas
So i~l s •
Soil Series
_ preaominan~:y v:~~ ;_..
(humus, Huck or pez:)
~re~cminantly mineral
predominantly s~a_,
(r.cr:-saucy)
:•;aYac~; :c =acto*s
ste~~ tccoora_n5-
~itc^ed or charineli~e~
:oral wetland FriC~1 ? 100 feet.
Dominant/ Vegetation --... _ ..~ ~...
•(2) <~•,
rlaodln_ anQ SVetneSS
se:r,iper~•~anent ly to
permanently floodec o.
inuna.ated
seasonally ~Iooded or
inundated
~inter~nittent I J f loodee cr
• te:~porarv surT ace water
ne•:Tand T-%Ce (selec~ On?)= i.a 2G"IdenC~ GL FIOOQ2n$ aT_'
i,Ott0.?IIan^. ~arQ;'r000 :~~re5~ SL1r~r3Ce i=;c.;.~er '
S:r4'to sorest aco; : en
Carolina Eaf e~..;;~_e_ crest
ocosin 5ca =:.~es~
r^ i ze Savznnah ~phe:meral Yet Ianj
=esh::ater Ha*sh ~~~tZer: ~sc.~3;'e~,.' ~,~r G..a
+iil~ rat l:l.g^ Sys ~°_.il C?_ni.G; J~ E_ :.I 1e :^. 5'.'..I ~ CT_' OraCkIS~ CIlarSh~S ar
Strea.'7 caanneis.

~7AT R STOR.4Gr, ~ ~ :c .. Ov =
-.. _ - , - t
3~~~~lSHOP.ELINE ST:.~ILI2AT1O:t 2 _
x 4.00 = l2 ..
•- -
' .OLLUT~,~IT RE?~{Oti'AL ~ 2 - ~ x 5.00 = /0 .. ---
iFILT~LIF£ HASiT~-T ? ~ x 2.00 = ~

'
3 _
'"
=. JP_TIC LIFT, VALUE'
.Q X Q.GO = ~
•
' r".iCREATION/-cDUCATIO;i Z :c 1.00 = 3
~ _
;FETE a~YD SCOI.E - Sf
(TOTAL)

~d~ 1 point if in sens:t.v
: c.atershed
znd >i0 ~ nonpoi:~ -
t dist~•-band
•v~*~+~n t/2 ~riie ups ::es::,, ~~pslaoe, or radius.