20080392 Ver 1_Reports_20020228

NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over
Jinnys Branch
Brunswick County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4031
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 00-ES-12
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
C

~Np RTH Cq~
O~
~2
roF rR
January 2002
~ r^ ~ i
,~~~ ~, ~i
h ~~
~ '1 ~ ..~
,~ J ~/
F '-' , "~

' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 tNTRODUCTION .....................................•-•--•---...............---...............................................1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... ..1
' 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ ..1
..1
1.4 Qualifications ----••--••-• ................................................................................................... ..3
' 1.5 Definitions .................................................................................................................... ..3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... ..3

' 2.1 Soils .............................................................................................................................
2.2 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... ..3
..4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... ..8
' 3.1 Terrestrial .................•-•---••---..............................----•--....................................................
3.2 Aquatic ......................................................................................................................... ..8
10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................................................................. 11
' 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ............................................................................................ 12
4.1 Waters of the United States ----•-• .................................................................................. 12

' 4.2 Permit Issues .....................................•-•--................................................---•----.............
4.3 Protected Species..-• .................................................................................................... 13
15
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 23

LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4031 .............. . 9
Table 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates from Jinnys Branch ........................................... 1 1
' Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters for B-4031 ................................. 13
Table 4. Federally Protected Species for Brunswick County, NC .................................. 15
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Brunswick County, NC ......................... 22

1

1

Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch
' Brunswick County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4031
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Pro'ect Description
1
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
72 on NC Highway 179 over Jinnys Branch in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
' Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) was provided with a project study area depicted on an
aerial photograph and was asked to complete a Natural Resource Technical Report in order
to assess the existing environmental conditions of the identified project study area. The
project study area for B-4031 is approximately 8.21 acres (3.33 hectares) in size based on
the map provided by the NCDOT and is located south of the Town of Shallotte, NC. The
' surface water located within the project study area is listed as Sauce Pan Creek in the
documentation provided by the NCDOT. Further investigation indicates that the surface
water is named Jinnys Branch at the location of Bridge No. 72 on NC 179. This surface
' water becomes Sauce Pan Creek further downstream.
' 1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of existing natural resources in the
project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions
' of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an
evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction; 31 a preliminary
assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 3) a preliminary determination
' of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped project study
area and does not take into account the final design or limits of construction.
' 1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources. The Shallotte, NC (19901, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic map was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
' characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

1

mapping was also consulted to determine what potential wetland types may be
encountered in the field. The Soi/ Survey of Brunswick County, North Caro/ina (USDA
1986), and recent aerial photography (1 inch = 100 feet) furnished by the NCDOT were
' also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands.
' Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field
verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
' NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford eta/. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
' delineation guidelines (DOA 19871. Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et a/. (1979).
Water resource information for Jinnys Branch was derived from the most recent versions
of the Lumber River Basin wide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 1999), Basin wide Assessment
' Report-Lumber River Basin (DWQ 19981, and several NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS list (April 12, 2001) of federal protected species with ranges
extending into Brunswick County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation.
t In addition, NHP records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were
consulted before commencing the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and
' aquatic wildlife were documented, and expected population distributions were determined
through observations of available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in
Martof et a/. (1980), Webster et a/. (19851, Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et a/.
' (19941, and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
' Information regarding Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species was requested via a
letter to Mr. David Cox of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) dated August
7, 2001 .
' Additional information regarding construction moratoria has been requested from the NC
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) and NCWRC.
2

' 1.4 Qualifications
' The field investigation associated with B-4031 was conducted on 28 August 2001 by ESI
staff. Jeff Harbour is the Project Manager for this Natural Resource Investigation and
' supervised the field investigation. Mr. Harbour has a B.S. in Marine Science and has more
than nine years of professional experience. Mr. Harbour is also a Professional Wetland
Scientist (No. 0001204- as certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists. Additional ESI
' staff involved with the field investigation include Josh Witherspoon, Kevin Lapp, and
Charles Kaufman. Mr. Witherspoon has a B.S. in Natural Resources and more than six
years of professional experience. He is also a North Carolina Soil-Scientist-in-Training. Mr.
Lapp has a M.S. in Biology, more than three years of professional experience, and is
certified in Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols by DWQ. Mr. Kaufman has a B.S. in Marine
' Biology and more than 1 year of professional experience.
' 1.5 Definitions
The project study area is approximately 1950 feet (594 meters) in length and widths range
' from 100 feet (30 m) at the terminus to approximately 350 feet (107 m) at the existing
bridge. The project study area is located on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, south of the
Town of Shallotte in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The bridge is located
' approximately 0.3 mile (0.5 kilometer) north of the intersection of NC 17 and SR 1 143.
' The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile 10.8 km) on all sides of the
project study area.
' 2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
' The project study area is located in the lower Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly
level. Elevations in the project study area range from sea level to 25 feet (7.6 m) above
' mean sea level (USGS 1990). The project study area consists of existing maintained right-
of-way, urban disturbed areas, pine and pine/hardwood forests, and a tidal marsh.
The existing land use within the project vicinity includes a mixture of residential areas and
a golf course.
2.1 Soils
' The project study area crosses four soil-mapping units (USDA 1986). These mapping units
include Bohicket silty clay loam (Typic Sulfaquents), Blanton fine sand (Grossarenic
' Paleudults), Baymeade fine sand (Arenic Hapludults), and Pactolus fine sand (Aquic
3

' Quartzipsamments). Hydric soils mapped as occurring within the project study area include
only the Bohicket series. Nonhydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions mapped as
occurring within the project study area include the Blanton series, Baymeade series, and
Pactolus series. The Blanton series is moderately well drained but may contain inclusions
' of the hydric Muckalee series in narrow drainageways. The Baymeade series is well
drained but may contain inclusions of the hydric Leon series in narrow depressions. The
Pactolus series is moderately well drained but may contain inclusions of the hydric Leon
' series in small depressions.
' From a broader perspective, the project study area is located in one soil association, the
Leon-Murville-Mandarin association (USDA 19861. This soil association contains nearly
level, very poorly to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a weakly cemented, sandy
subsoil located on uplands.
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
~ The project study area is located within sub-basin 030759 of the Lumber River Basin
(DWQ 1998) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040207 (USGS 1974). Jinnys Branch
is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement
project. Jinnys Branch originates north of the Town of Ocean Isle in Brunswick County
' and flows east to its confluence with Sauce Pan Creek, approximately 1 mile (1.6 km)
southeast of the project study area. Jinnys Branch has been assigned Stream Index
Number (SIN) 15-25-2-16-1-(1.5) by the DWQ from a point 0.5 mile (0.8 km) upstream of
SR 1154 downstream to SR 1143 and SIN 15-25-2-16-1-(2) from SR 1143 downstream to
its confluence with Saucepan Creek (DWQ 2001-. Available mapping indicates that Jinnys
Branch is not crossed by SR1143; NC 179, which joins SR1143, does cross Jinnys Branch
and has been confirmed as the break point for the two SINs (DENR 2001 a).
' Jinnys Branch is a perennial tidal stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
mud, sand and silt. A tidal salt marsh is present adjacent to both banks of the stream
through the project study area. The channel ranges from approximately 20.0 to 40.0 feet
(6.1 to 12.2 m) wide and depths are estimated to range from 2.0 to 6.0 feet (0.6 to 1.8
m). Preliminary observations indicate that this particular section of Jinnys Branch may
' represent an "E" type channel pursuant to Rosgen (1996).
A Best Usage Classification is 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. Jinnys Branch has been assigned two best usage classifications in the project study
area. Jinnys Branch has been assigned a best usage classification of C Sw HQW (DEM
4

1
1993, DWQ 2001) from a point 0.5 mile (0.8 km) upstream of SR 1 154 to NC 179. The
C designation indicates waters designated for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The Sw supplemental classification
indicates swamp waters, which have low velocities and other natural characteristics,
' which are different from adjacent streams. The HWQ supplemental designation indicates
waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics
through division monitoring or special studies. Jinnys Branch has been assigned a Best
' Usage Classification of SA from NC 179 to its confluence with Saucepan Creek. The SA
designation indicates tidal salt waters suitable for shellfishing for market purposes as well
as primary recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, and wildlife.
The entire length of Jinnys Branch is considered "Coastal Waters". "Coastal Waters"
' include: the Atlantic Ocean; the various coastal waters; and estuarine waters up to the
dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters agreed upon by the
' NC Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) and the NCWRC (NCMFC 2001). Jinnys
Branch will also likely be considered a primary nursery area based on its tidal salt marsh
characteristics. No shellfish beds were observed during the field investigation; however,
the project study area does contain suitable habitat for the formation of shellfish beds such
as those utilized by oysters (Crassostrea virginica).
Jinnys Branch is classified as HQW from a point 0.5 mile (0.8 km) upstream of SR 1 154 to
NC 179. A small portion of Jinnys Branch designated as HQW is within the project study
area. The HQW supplemental designation indicates waters that are rated as excellent
based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or
special studies. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW-, WS I, or WS-II Waters occur
within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using
the structure and health of fish communities. Between 1992 and 1996, monitoring
stations in the 10 subbasins of the Lumber River Basin were sampled to determine overall
water quality; no sampling stations are located on Jinnys Branch based on the most recent
Basinwide Assessment Report (DWQ 1999-.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
"those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
5

maturity" (NMFS 1999). For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters"
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
' are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
"substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a
sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and
"spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
(NMFS 1999-. An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on
' EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 Ig1 mandatory contents include: a description of the
proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action
agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect
includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR
600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption),
indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-
' wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
During agency review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
project, the COE makes the initial determination of whether or not a proposed project "may
adversely affect" EFH. This determination by the COE is submitted to the NMFS for their
review and comment. NMFS will then determine if additional consultation is necessary
regarding the proposed project or if they concur with COE's decision.
Any significant stream or river in a county under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) may be considered EFH unless otherwise documented by the
NMFS. ESI has reviewed the current species list prepared by the NMFS pertaining to EFH,
and all listed species are either marine or estuarine species. The project study area occurs
' in "Coastal Waters" as indicated by the NCMFC and species inhabiting the tidal marsh are
marine or estuarine in nature. Because of this, the project area will likely be considered
EFH by COE and NMFS.
Permitted Dischargers
' Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ 1999). stormwater point source discharges
include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges
associated with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina
' must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
6

permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Within subbasin 030759 there are three major
' NPDES dischargers. No NPDES dischargers are located on Jinnys Branch nor on its
receiving water, Saucepan Creek (DWQ 1999, DENR 2001 b). The three NPDES
dischargers in the subbasin are located on the Shallotte River or unnamed tributaries of the
Shallotte River; these dischargers are not located upstream or downstream from the project
study area. A golf course is adjacent to the southwest portion of the project study area.
' Runoff from this golf course may contribute non-point source discharge to Jinnys Branch.
' Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
' construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs- can minimize impacts
during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Development
' activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or local erosion and
' sedimentation control program approved in accordance with 15 NCAC 4B .0218, and
which drain to and are within 1 mile (1 .6 km) of HQW shall be required to follow
stormwater management rules as specified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000. stormwater
management requirements are described in 15A NCAC 2H .1006.
' Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, can be
anticipated as a result of this project if roadway or bridge surface area increases.
' However, due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding areas,
impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
' In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
resources/organisms. Specific moratorium dates will be determined by the NCWRC and
the NCDCM.

~
,
1

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial
' Existing Vegetation Patterns
' Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
' practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified
from the NHP classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions
written to reflect local variations within the project study area. Three natural plant
' communities occur within the project study area and one community results from human
activities.
1

1

0

Tidal Salt Marsh -Tidal salt marsh covers approximately 2.28 acres (0.92 ha) [27.5
percent] of the project study area. This plant community is located on the east and west
sides of the bridge adjacent to both sides of Jinnys Branch. Shrub species along the edge
of the salt marsh consist of marsh elder (/va frutescens) and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
The salt marsh is dominated by such species as saltmeadow grass (Spartina patens),
saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina a/ternif/ora), sea lavender (Limonium taro/inianum), and
blackneedle rush (Juncus roemerianusl. Both the tall and short form of S. a/ternif/ora occur
in the project study area.
Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest -Coastal fringe evergreen forest covers approximately
1.44 acres (0.58 ha) [17.5 percent] of the project study area. This plant community is
located on the east side of NC 179 upslope from the salt marsh and is often found
associated with the Pactolus series. Tree species consist of live oak (Quercus virginiana),
post oak (Quercus ste//ata-, and red maple (Ater rubrum). Midstory and shrub species
consist of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sassafras (Sassafras albidum-, hickory (Carya
sp.), yaupon holly (//ex vomitoria), and wax myrtle. Groundcover species consist of
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifo/ia1, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica, Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Pine/Hardwood Forest -Pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 1.21 acres (0.49 ha)
' [15 percent] of the project study area. This plant community is located on east side of NC
179 south of the salt marsh and coastal fringe evergreen forest. Tree species consist of
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda-, sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif/ua), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron to/ipifera). Midstory and shrub species consist of American holly (//ex opaca),
red maple, yaupon holly, and red bay (Persea borbonia). Groundcover species consist of
8
C

muscadine grape, American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areo/ata), and Japanese honeysuckle.
Maintained/Disturbed Land -Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 3.28 acres
' (1.33 ha) (40 percent] of the project study area. Maintained/disturbed areas can include
roadways, parking lots, roadsides, maintained residential yards, powerline rights-of-way,
the golf course, and areas where other human related activities dominate the landscape.
' Roadsides, lawns, and powerline rights-of-way are typically maintained by mowing and/or
herbicides. Species observed within the road right-of-ways include winged sumac (Rhus
' copa//inum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry
(Rubus argutus-.
The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on an aerial photograph
base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community within the
' project study area is presented in Table 1. This does not take into account the final
alignment and actual right-of-way width, which will result in much less impact than the
acreages presented below.
Table 1. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4031.
1

Plant Community Approximate Amount in Acres (hectares)
Tidal Salt Marsh 2.28 (0.92 ha)
Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest 1.44 (0.58 ha)
Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.21 (0.49 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed Land 3.28 (1.33 ha)
Total 8.21 (3.33 ha)
' Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Very little
terrestrial wildlife was observed within the project study area. The only mammal observed
within the project study area is river otter (Lutra canadensis). Mammals expected to occur
' in and around the project study area include raccoon (Procyon /otor), marsh rabbit
(Sylvilagus palustris), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Very few terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Reptile species
observed include rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivusl, ground skink (Scince//a /atera/is)
and green anole (Ano/is Caro/inensis-. Other reptile species expected to occur in and
around the project study area include black racer (Co/uber constrictor), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
9

1
No terrestrial or aboreal amphibians were observed within the project study area.
Terrestrial or aboreal amphibians expected to occur in and around the project study area
' include such species as southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/aria), and spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer).
Avian species observed within the project study area include great egret (Ardea a/ba), blue
jay (Cyanocitta cristata-, and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchosl. Other species
' expected to occur in and around the project study area include such species as snowy
egret (Egretta thu/al, great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and osprey (Pandion ha/iaetus-.
' Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study area are typically adapted to
life in or around a salt marsh and fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be
' minor. Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed
project will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be significantly impacted by
' the proposed project.
' 3.2 Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Jinnys Branch and the
' adjacent littoral fringe, where regular flooding is evident.
' Kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, and electroshocking were limited due to the unstable
substrate. Visual observation of stream banks and channel within the project study area
were conducted along Jinnys Branch to document the aquatic community. The unstable
' substrate and salinity of Jinnys Branch prevented the use of the back-mounted electro-
shocker, thus limiting the results of the fisheries survey.
' Aquatic Wildlife
' Fish species documented in Jinnys Branch during the field investigation include striped
killifish (Fundu/us maja/is) and mummichog (Fundu/us heteroc/itus). Coastal streams are
' often used by anadromous fish species such as striped bass IMorone saxatillis) and shad
(Alosa spp.). Anadromous fish may occur in Jinnys Branch. Menhinick (1991) does not
document any of these species from Jinnys Branch, but does document striped bass,
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) from the
adjacent Shallotte River system. Menhinick (1991) does not document either the Atlantic
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) or the shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) as occurring
' in this subbasin. ESI has contacted the NCWRC, NCDCM, and NCDMF via letters dated
August 7 and 8, 2001 regarding pertinent fisheries information within the project study
' 10

v
' area. Additionally, information regarding the occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon has
been requested.
' Additional a vatic wildlife direct) observed in Jinnys Branch and the adjacent tidal salt
q Y
marsh include fiddler crab (Uca spp.-, marsh crab (Sesarma spp.), marsh periwinkle
(Littorina irrorata-, and ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa).
' Limited benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in Jinnys Branch. Several
benthic samples were taken from an area under the existing bridge where the substrate
was firm enough to support a persons weight. Samples were collected pursuant to current
DWQ methodology. Table 2 provides a list of benthic organisms collected and identified to
Order and Family when possible.
' Table 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected From Jinnys Branch.
Order Family
Annelida Oligochaeta
' Decapoda Palaemonidae
' 3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of B-4031 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the project study area. The replacement of the existing
structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Impacts resulting from bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. Plant
communities within the project study area are presented in Table 1; however, actual
impacts will be limited to the designed right-of-way and permitted construction limits. Due
to the anticipated lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed
bridge replacement should not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. Wildlife movement corridors should not be significantly impacted by
the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study area are generally
acclimated to fragmented landscapes, and the bridge replacement should not create any
additional detrimental conditions within the project study area.
Aquatic Communities
The replacement of B-4031 may cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities in
and around the project study area. Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat will
11

ii
L

C

1
0

be avoided by bridging Jinnys Branch to maintain regular flow and stream integrity.
Support structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever
possible. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute
minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water.
Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15 m) from the stream
channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material to minimize the
chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all
construction phases including the BMPs for HQWs.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No
long-term impacts are expected to result from this project. No impacts are anticipated to
anadromous fish runs or spawning habitat. Anadromous fish species have been
documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the subbasin and may occur in the
project study area. NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guide/roes for Anadromous Fish should be
utilized to ensure that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish.
Resident aquatic species may be displaced during construction activities; however,
anticipated impacts are expected to be minor and temporary.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA1. Additionally, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States" and are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and COE as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
' duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR
328.31b)(1986)l.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA 133 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
12
1

' of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Three wetland types occur within the project study area. The surface waters within the
' channel of Jinnys Branch and the tidal salt marsh adjacent to Jinnys Branch exhibit
characteristics of estuarine, intertidal, persistent emergent, regularly flooded wetlands
(E2EM 1 N) pursuant to Cowardin et a/. (1979). The wetland areas adjacent to the road fill
' exhibit characteristics of estuarine, intertidal, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved evergreen,
regularly flooded wetlands (E2SS1N) pursuant to Cowardin et a/. (1979). The wetland
' area south of Jinnys Branch exhibits characteristics of a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, saturated wetland (PF01 B) pursuant to Cowardin eta/. (1979).
' ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of these wetland areas based on current COE
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble TM Global Positioning
' System (GPS) units. Table 3 contains the approximate acreage of the three wetland types
occurring within the project study area. Wetland area is based upon aerial photography
base mapping provided by NCDOT.
' Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters for B-4031.
Wetland Type Approximate Acreage Iha1a Linear Feet (m) of Channel
E2EM 1 N 2.24 ac (0.90 ha) 350 ft (107 m)
' E2SS1 N 0.04 ac (0.02 ha) ___
PF01 B 0.18 ac (0.07 ha)
Total b 2.46 ac (0.99 ha) 350 ft (107 m1
a Based on individual wetland types observed during the field investigation.
b Based on results of GPS maps and project study area limits provided by NCDOT.
' Anticipated impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be determined
during the design phase of the project. Actual impacts will be limited to right-of-way
' widths and will be less than the amounts described in Table 3.
' 4.2 Permit Issues '
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)1231]
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
13

Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be
required if temporary structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary
for this project and if review of the temporary structures are not included in the NEPA
document.

I
Cl

Brunswick County is a coastal county and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of
the CAMA as regulated by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and the NCDCM.
Activities that impact certain coastal wetlands under the jurisdiction of CAMA or Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) typically require CAMA approval through the NCDCM
(NCDCM 2001). Portions of the project study area will likely qualify as an AEC because of
the following four criteria defining CAMA'a AECs: 1- public trust waters; 2} estuarine
waters; 3) coastal shorelines; and 4) coastal wetlands. Public trust waters are the coastal
waters and submerged lands that every North Carolinian has the right to use. These areas
often overlap with estuarine waters, but also include many "inland" fishing waters
(NCDCM 2001). Estuarine waters are the state's oceans, sounds, tidal rivers and their
tributaries, which stretch across coastal North Carolina and link to the other parts of the
estuarine system: public trust areas, coastal wetlands and coastal shorelines (NCDCM
2001). Coastal shorelines include all lands within 75 feet (23 m) of the normal high water
level of estuarine waters. Coastal wetlands include any marsh in the 20 coastal counties
that regularly or occasionally flood by lunar or wind tides, and include one or more of the
ten listed CAMA plant species. Most of the project study area along Jinnys Branch meets
these four criteria, and replacement of B-4031 will likely require CAMA approval.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is also responsible for authorizing bridges pursuant
to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946.
The purpose of these Acts to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent
interference with interstate and foreign commerce. Bridge construction or replacement
over navigable waters may require USCG authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 1 14-1 15.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-
' way width and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project.
Impacts to open water areas of Jinnys Branch are not expected due to the use of channel-
spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized,
including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to
minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
Wetland Avoidance -Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project
study area, complete avoidance of jurisdictional impacts may not be possible.
. .. .
Mmimization -Minimization of Jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by utilizing as much
' of the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of new
14

' impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Spanning Jinnys Branch will also
serve to minimize direct impacts to the stream channel.
' Miti ation - Com ensator miti ation could be re uired for hi
9 p Y 9 q i s project if it does not meet
' the criteria for a CE pursuant to NWP #23. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an
effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands.
Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by
' replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material
within the floodplain upon project completion.
' Some opportunity for on-site or directly adjacent mitigation exists within the project study
area. Adjacent land use consists of a golf course and private residences. The existing
' causeway and approach to the existing bridge could possibly provide on-site wetland
restoration if the new bridge is to be located in a different location; however, constructing
a new bridge in a differen t location could result in additional wetland impacts .
4.3 Protected Species
' Species with the federal classification of Endangered IE- or Threatened IT ), or officially
proposed (P) for such lis ting, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Federally protected species listed for
Brunswick County (FWS l ist dated 12 April 2001) are presented in Table 4.
' Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for Brunswick County, NC.
Biological
'
Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Unresolved
American alligator A/ligator mississippiensis T(S/A)' NA
' Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No effect
Green sea turtle Che/onia mydas T No effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermoche/ys coriacea E No effect
Piping plover Charadrius me/odus T No effect
'
Bald eagle Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us TZ Unresolved
Wood stork Mycteria americans E Unresolved
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No effect
'
Manatee Trichechus manatus E No effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T No effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperu/aefo/ia E No effect
' Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E No effect
' ' T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
z Proposed for delisting
' 15

' shortnose sturgeon -The shortnose stugeon is an anadromous fish whose usual habitat is
estuaries and lower sections of larger rivers. It moves into fresh water only to spawn
(Gilbert 1989). The shortnose sturgeon rarely reaches 3 feet (0.9 m) in length, is dark
above and light below, and has a wide mouth pointed downward beneath a short snout.
Menhinick (1991) has not documented the shortnose sturgeon in the Lumber River Basin.
Requests for information have been submitted to the NCWRC, NCDMF, and FWS.
' No Designated Critical Habitat or Proposed Critical Habitat for shortnose sturgeon is
currently listed by the NMFS (NMFS 20011.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
' The project study area does appear to represent potential habitat for shortnose
sturgeon based upon descriptions in available literature about the species; however,
an accurate determination of its presence or use of the project study area is not
' possible at this time. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. A follow-up survey should be
conducted 1 to 2 years prior to project construction.
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
native to North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a wide variety of freshwater
to estuarine habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes,
large streams, canals, ponds and lakes (Palmer and Braswell 19951. This habitat exists
within the project study area, and the potential for alligators within the project study area
' does exist. No individuals or direct evidence of occurrence was observed during the field
investigation conducted by ESI biologists. Construction activities may temporarily displace
any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to the American
alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Applicable
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed as
T(S/A).
Sea turtles -Four marine turtles are listed for Brunswick County: loggerhead sea turtle,
Kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and green sea turtle.
' The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle on the coast of the North Carolina
and is most numerous from late April to October. This species averages 31 to 47 inches
(0.8 to 1.2 m) in length and weighs from 170 to 500 pounds (Ibs) (77 to 227 kg) (Martof
' et a/. 1980). The loggerhead sea turtle is temperate or subtropical in nature, and is
16

' primarily oceanic, but it may also stray into freshwater bays, sounds, and large rivers.
Nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtles consists of ocean beaches.
' The Kem 's ridle sea turtle i h _
p y s t e smallest of the sea turtles with a 23- to 30 inch (0.6 to
' 0.8 m) carapace, and weighing 79 to 1 10 lbs. (36 to 50 kg). It is generally considered the
most endangered species of sea turtle in the world (Palmer and Braswell 1995-. This
species ranges from the Gulf of Mexico and the east coast, to Nova Scotia and Europe. In
addition to its small size, this species is discernible by the heart shaped carapace and gray
coloration. Kemp's ridley sea turtle prefers shallow coastal waters, including sounds and
the lower portions of large rivers, where it feeds on crabs, shrimp, snails, clams, and some
saltwater plants. Nearly all members of this species are believed to nest on a short strand
' of ocean beach in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Only a single nesting record exists for
North Carolina, on Long Beach in Brunswick County (1992).
i Both the green sea turtle and leatherback sea turtle typically nest on sandy beaches in
tropical areas. The green sea turtle is most commonly found in the Caribbean where they
breed, although individuals, usually immatures, are occasionally found along the North
Carolina coast. Although primarily tropical in nature, the range of the leatherback sea
turtle may extend to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Martof et a/. 1980). The leatherback
sea turtle sometimes moves into shallow bays, estuaries, and even river mouths. The
green sea turtle reaches lengths of 30 to 60 inches 10.8 to 1.5 m) and weighs of 220 to
' 650 lbs. (100 to 295 kg), and has a smooth, heart-shaped shell (Martof et a/. 1980). The
leatherback sea turtle is distinguished by its larger size (46 to 70-inch [1.2 to 1.8 m]
carapace, 650 to 1,500 lbs. [295 to 680 kg)) and a ridged shell of soft, leathery skin.
' Green sea turtles are omnivorous, primarily eating jellyfish and seaweeds. The leatherback
sea turtle also feeds extensively on jellyfish, although its diet often includes other sea
animals and seaweed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
These species are not expected to occur in the project stud area due to lack of
1 Y
' nesting habitat and minimal feeding opportunities. This project will not have an
effect on sea turtles due to the lack of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
these species. Loggerhead and green sea turtles have been documented as close as
' Ocean Isle Beach, which is approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) from the project study
area. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile
(1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. Project construction
should not have an effect on any of the sea turtle species.
17

r

C
i~
u
ii

Piping plover -Piping plovers are small shorebirds that occur along beaches above the high
tide line, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes,
blowout areas behind primary dunes, and washover areas cut into or between dunes (FWS
1996a). Nests are typically found on open, wide sandy stretches of beach similar to those
associated with inlets and capes. Critical habitat has been proposed for the piping plover
in Brunswick County pursuant to the July 6, 2000 Federal Register 65: 41 782-41 81 2.
This critical habitat designation should not affect the project study area since primary
habitat is along beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat in the project study area for this species. The proposed
project will not affect proposed critical habitat for this species. The piping plover
has been documented by NHP along Ocean Isle Beach, which is approximately 2.0
miles (3.2 km) from the project study area. NHP records do not document any
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of
December 20, 2001.
Eastern cougar -The eastern cougar is a possibly extinct eastern subspecies of the
widespread mountain lion species. This species was possibly extirpated from North
Carolina by the late 1800's although recent sporadic sightings have been reported from
remote areas of the Mountains and Coastal Plain (Lee 1987). Mountain lions are large,
long-tailed cats; adult males may measure 7.0 to 9.0 feet (2.1 to 2.7 m) total length with
females averaging 30 to 40 percent smaller (Handley 1991-. Adult mountain lion tracks
measure approximately 3.5 inches (0.1 m) (Lee 1987).
Recent specimens of mountain lion taken in North Carolina and elsewhere in mid-Atlantic
states have proved to be individuals of other subspecies that have escaped or been
released from captivity (Lee 1987, Handley 1991). The eastern cougar would require large
tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat that support large populations of white-tailed deer
(Webster et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No tangible evidence has been produced documenting the existence of this
subspecies in Brunswick County. Due to the lack of wilderness area within the
project study area, no suitable habitat for this subspecies is believed to be present.
No cat tracks of sufficient size for eastern cougar were identified during field
investigations. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species
within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. The
proposed project will not affect this species.
18

Bald eagle -The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet (1.8 m).
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown
with whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on
fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends
from December through May (Potter et al. 19801.
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and
forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel 1992).
Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (229 to
' 457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining acceptable
conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). FWS recommends avoiding any disturbance activities,
including construction and tree-cutting, within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone
' extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1 mile (1.6 km) from a nest
tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting
period. FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles
forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet (457 m) of
roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
' Nesting habitat for bald eagles does not exist within the project study area;
however, Jinnys Branch may provide potential foraging habitat for this species. No
nest trees were located within the project study area nor were any bald eagles
directly observed. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km- of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. A
' follow-up survey should be conducted 1 to 2 years prior to project construction.
Wood stork - Wood storks do not breed in North Carolina, but a few disperse to
southeastern North Carolina following breeding season. During recent years, a small flock
has been regularly present in Brunswick County in mid- to late-summer (NHP files). The
tidal salt marsh within the project study area provides suitable foraging habitat for this
species (Hamel 19921. Suitable foraging opportunities may be temporarily disrupted during
construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
The golf course and salt marsh adjacent to Jinnys Branch may provide suitable
foraging habitat for the wood stork. No individuals or direct evidence of occurrence
' was observed during the field investigation. Construction activities may temporarily
displace any wood storks in the project vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
the wood stork is anticipated as a result of this project. NHP records do not
document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project
19

study area as of December 20, 2001. A follow-up survey should be conducted 1 to
2 years prior to project construction.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) -This small woodpecker is 7.0 to 8.5 inches (0.2 m)
long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black and white barred back.
Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent
or difficult to see (Potter et a/. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature
' southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, longleaf (Pious pa/ustris-, slash (P. a//iotii), and
pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines,
generally older than 60 years that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity
trees typically occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills
holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, which results in a shiny, resinous buildup
around the entrance. This allows for easy detection of active nest trees due to the high
• visibility of the resin deposit at the cavity entrance. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas that
are fire maintained serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species. Development
of a thick understory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential
nest sites for RCW's include pine and pine/hardwood stands greater than 60 years of age.
Hardwood/pine stands (< 50% pine) greater than 60 years of age may also be considered
potential nesting habitat if adjacent to potential foraging habitat (Henry 1989). Foraging
habitat is typically comprised of open pine/mixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age
(Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60 percent of the canopy in order to provide
suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger pine stands may be utilized if the trees
have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than or equal to 9 inches (0.2 m).
Foraging stands must be connected to other foraging areas or nesting areas in order to be
deemed a viable foraging site. Open spaces or unsuitable habitat wider than approximately
' 330 feet (100 m) are considered a barrier to RCW foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No suitable habitat that would support nesting or foraging populations of the red-
, cockaded woodpecker was identified within the project study area nor directly
adjacent to the project study area. NHP records do not document any occurrences
of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km} of the project study area as of December
' 20, 2001. Project construction should not effect this species.
Manatee -The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about
10 feet (3 m) in length and weight up to 1000 lbs. (454 kg). Manatees inhabit both salt
and fresh water of a sufficient depth (5.0 to 20.0 feet [1.5 to 6.1 m]}. They may be
encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and in nearshore waters.
Manatees prefer water temperatures warmer than approximately 34° Fahrenheit, however,
~ they have been observed in waters of a lower temperature (Webster et a/. 1985). They
20

0

may be encountered in North Carolina waters during the warmer summer months;
however, they are much more common in Georgia and Florida waters.
BIOLOGICIAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

IJ
Due to the lack of suitable aquatic vegetation for foraging and the shallow depth of
the channel, vagrant manatees visiting the lower Lumber River system would not be
expected within the project study area. NHP records do not document any
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of
December 20, 2001.
seabeach amaranth -This species is an annual herb that grows on barrier island beaches.
It is a succulent annual that is sprawling or trailing and may reach 2.0 feet (0.6 m} or more
in length. Inconspicuous flowers and fruits are produced in the leaf axils, typically
beginning in July and continuing until frost. Primary habitat for seabeach amaranth
consists of bare sand, especially on over wash flats at accreting ends of islands, and lower
foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. The only remaining large populations
are in coastal North Carolina IFWS 1996b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
This project will not affect seabeach amaranth because there is no suitable habitat
(barrier beaches) within the project study area. NHP records do not document any
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of
December 20, 2001.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that
flowers from late May to June with seeds forming by August and capsules dehiscing in
October. This species can grow up to 2.0 feet (0.6 m) tall has yellow flowers that
typically bloom in late May through June. Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs along
the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer (i. e., pocosins). This
species is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills region of North Carolina. This
species is fire maintained, and suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to
the loss of habitat in North Carolina IFWS 1994a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support rough-leaved loosestrife occurs in the project study
area. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile
(1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001.
21

Cooley's meadowrue - Cooley's meadowrue is a rare perennial herb endemic to the
' Southeastern Coastal Plain. The species grows in circumneutral soil in moist wet savannas
and savanna-like areas kept open by fire or other disturbance. In North Carolina, Cooley's
meadowrue has been documented as growing in the following soil series: Foreston,
Grifton, Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington. All of these series have sandy loam
textures. Tulip poplar and cypress (Taxodium sp.) growing together, bordering a savanna-
' like area, has been the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites (FWS 1994b-.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No habitat that would support Cooley's meadowrue is located within the project
study area. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within
1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001.
' Federal Species of Concern
The 12 April 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999,
LeGrand et a/. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for FSC listed for
~ Brunswick County (Table 5).
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Brunswick County, NC.
Common Scientific State Potential
' Name Name Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC N
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslow/i SR N
'
Carolina pygmy sunfish E/assoma boeh/kei T N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR(PSC) Y
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC(PT) Y
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris SR Y
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus
melano%ucus SC Y
Carolina gopher frog Rana cap/to capito SC(PT) N
Buchholz's dart moth Agrotis buchholzi SR N
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos SR N
Waccamaw spike Elliptio waccamawensis T N
Greenfield ramshorn He/isoma eucosmium SR N
Venus flytrap cutworm Hem/pachnobia subporphyrea
moth subporphyrea S R N
Magnificent ramshorn Planorbella magnifica E N
Rare skipper Problema bulenta SR N
Table 5. Continues.
22

Table 5. Continued
' Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status Habitat
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T N
'
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana
var. confusa T N
Honeycomb head Balduina atropurpurea C N
' Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W N
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipu/a C-SC N
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus C N
Harper's fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T N
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C N
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caro/iniana T N
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T N
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata W N
Carolina grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia caro/iniana E N
Pineland plantain P/antago sparsif/ora E N
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T N
Swamp forest beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens C N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei E N
Carolina goldenrod So/idago pu/chra E N
'
Spring-flowered goldenrod So/idago versa T N
Wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius
sensus stricto T N
Carolina asphodel Tofie/dia g/abra C N
Dune bluecurls Trichostema sp.7 C N
Savanna campylopus Campylopus carolinae C N

' E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W -Watch List, P -Proposed,
SR -Significantly Rare, C1-under consideration for official federal listing.
No FSC were observed during the field investigation and NHP files do not document any
occurrences of FSC within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20,
2001.
23

' 5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. 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. 85 pp.
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.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.(DENR) 2001 a. Personal
communication with Elizabeth Kountis on September 13, 2001.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001 b. Active NPDES Permits. Web
Address: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.htm on September 1,
2001.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Basin-wide Assessment Report- Lumber River
Basin. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 149
PP
DWQ. 1999. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 129 pp.
DWQ. 2001. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. Web address:
h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies on September 25, 2001.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 1994a. Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
24

FWS. 1994b. Recovery Plan for Cooley's Meadowrue. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta GA. 29 pp.
FWS. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius me/odus) Atlantic Coast Population Revised
Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA. 258 pp.
FWS. 1996b. Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 59 pp.
FWS. 1997. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 10 pp.
FWS. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
Concern, By County, in North Carolina. Brunswick County, NC. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville NC.
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of the
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight) Atlantic and Shortnose
Sturgeons. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.122). U.S.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers TR EL 82-4. 28 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.
Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.) Virginia's
' Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward
Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
' Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
' Atlanta, GA.
Lee, D.S. 1987. Felis concolor True Panther. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of
North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the
North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
' 25

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. 62 pp.
NMFS. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats Under the
Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Web Address:
caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/nc_cand.htm on August 30, 2001.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Mangement (NCDCM). 2001. CAMA Handbook for
Development in Coastal North Carolina. NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Web Address: dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Handbook/handbook.htm 43 pp.
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC). 2001. North Carolina Fisheries
Rules for Coastal Waters. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.

L

1

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. 1 182 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
26

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-. 1986. Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 120 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS-. 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
USGS. 1990. Shallotte, North Carolina 7.5-minute series topographic map.
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.
27

J ~' K
/~'r~ /. Yt.. f., ~l , ~~\\- ( /r 1^• ~n25 nt Hilt - ' !' _ ~ ~-ii~ \ `? ._
~ ~ ~ a ~ t
... t _
r .i
_ . - ~ _- - ~ r - -~ r
# l: _
+ y ~ / J r .. ~` `~ ` -~ ~ ` ~ `' ~ /CIf'dv2~' J't.~ ~i ~. Gtav2{-t:~ .
~' ~ ~
~ V'
(1
-..
~~~~ ill ~~' ~, ~~' ~, r ~`- i ~ .~~~1 r^ ~`'^ ~ , ~ ~ ` --~ ~, 'S '. .
i r ~h / y ' mow. -~ ti _.- i + TS-''~ i C~!/aYe..1'ti ) !Ir .y -+~ ° ~:~.
T~ r }ti...~y. ~. ~~ _. t.~-. ~ ~~ \ ''_ r , ~ t ~y,-~ _ Yr"~~ r J t r r 4ip'3c~-
' ~ + ~ _' /~/ t ,tom • 1. ~ ,.{~~ ~,J'u {~,'~-- ~ i-v "- `, ~ `fir 1 - ~Cf U 1 ~ IO 1 ` I
i ~ i °' t-`•r is ' ~~ \ ~`- ~ t ,.t ~ S -. ri, ~ _ ~'• • ~ Il W2I- 1
i l ?i. ,~_ 'l f / ^-~~ {- ~ \+ 4 'cam' ~ \ r_-ti :.ti-.^ rl ~~ ~,. '.4' ~
_ _ J-. 1 ~ I ~ ~iy 3T •: f ~'lt r ~-t`t •~l ~- r-_~-7+~ ~; ,-t ~~ t e ~._, ,. ~ ?'~`
r :(` - r {i 3.f -.t~_ t ~-~~~J~t~-~ ~~' ~f1~~t /ti~ ~ t J(C\~l t - yr, ~~.
l .l ~~~ + _ *`r' `:}~, .~ 'T '~ t~ i-. `l~ „ ~ • r - jam'
~~ \ ~t j i+ ~ ' ( ~ t \~\J% ~ ~~ rj ~, ~~ ..Y> l ~'~j.. 1 `1~L . /{ - j P r ; ~. ^,_ f Y I `
Y ~~ ~Tl ~-.}i'--' %y. .~ ~. 5,4f~ ;~ ~- ~ 7 y ~ : t ~ /' ~ t > yl, ~". '~ f 1S ~-i
~_((~ .lam j~~ ''/~ ~r ~\t f' s ~.r-~/ ~ ~. I r., t. {-rV- ~r ~;~i ~._ ~ '~tv i.~ sr y~ ,---..
+t~ ,° ~ ry\~ ~'< 1l ~ZF ~ tom' 1 , ~ C4k1fJ$ ,' Cy ; -r-r^-.w~ ~~ r ;t ~' ~` 7
•- tti ~,~~L~-•33,~~. ~ r ~ 4~ // ,1.~ i'-~:'.~, b ~I ft ~~ ~Jr~, :F--~_
j!.f `~ „ t ` \ `t i'. ~Z/•`" i `L / ~~ t. t ~' /~~Jf ~ l ~ r i -mil y1 % '~*=~ J ri~r ' i -
/"-Y _~~ .. rte/ ~~~ r .t r~f 1 i -~ ~~~ .. __ t ~.-~ 1 j¢
i = /mil-'"~ -i .`_~ / ~ ~ ~` .~ ~34 +r ~ ,~•~" `~ Y~= ~= `t ~ _ t - ,,f•~.r l~ `-.~-~
_
l ~~. ~/ ~'' t`r ~ ~ it ~n t r- ~`~ /.i.. ~ ~ . ~ `; _ +j$ 1t t i i -~ ~ ' ~l _t ~' y ~J15
J~~S~I\ t,. tl,f i~-,. ~ _. ~.~-•` ~- ri: L _,/ a1t~,. ~il;,;,' tC'!'R >e '~f/.
~) . c
.- .
~` al ~ .y t ! ,t'~'-,'~-~'~ sue, i; , ~ r,:
` V l~lf v ~~~ ~y. r ~ t ~ ~ r ,~-. ~ r ~ t ~ fj s iw /~ .
~~r/ f'JSi~r ~a~ iy ,~' f /r..1.,~t /~, _ol j;- _ -~ ~tl~r ~~ ~.c--
,~J "~~tt yam, ~" &ielc
G ~ ~ ji ~.. ..\ ~ 1 ti's-! ~' ; `~ ~t^ ! ~ r . .' -~ ~ ~i ~ ~ R;i ~t y BhCk i'~ ~__! -~~fit~{
I~" tai 1 l ~ + ~. a-_ nJ~~'~. tip. .'-*-y"' i--- - .:ai,.R'4 +;J "; y's
. ,,, ,+ ` ~_~~`~,~; ? ~2y /_~~ f__ tir' ~-'t~ .( -~y~- 'qtr / --- 1/~ l ..t ~~ ~/ f _- __
......r.r ,~~.

L
L

>: ~., ~-,

;`
~~
~u
.~
d ~{
n \ y i
_ ~~
~'~ ` ,~
~ .,
1 ~ - : ~ ~_
- ~ ~,
~ ~-
...
d ~ -~ s .~
~" ~ ~ ~ L
~ a
a
~~
d ~~
~a ~ ~~ ~
d
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~-~ s
h a ~c ~ ~ ~
~~ ~- ~s
~L
' ~. ~' ~'="~TY
~ ~ }
~, ~ ,~ •_
-~ ~ ~
~ ~ S
~~ :- ` 'V t 1 ~ '-~'
is ~ -.,.~t L J ~ Q ;~ ~
,i
' ~
~~'`..._
r%
~~ ~ « ~ ~, . .r .__~. ~ _<--~--~- ....~~,.~ .z~~ .-~,.~.e _
~}
_~
'~
~~
d
~ ~9
b ~
-~~ v

;~..:::

- - - .~
= - r-- = - ---.
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W ' v
v

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

~~1`-
~~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands De{ineation Manual)

Project/Site- ~ ~ L/0,3 ~ Date: ~ '~ " ~~
Applicant/Owner: ~Jc~d ~^ County: rJr'tr,S(,,'~tL
Investigator: ~S Z State: /V L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~s No Community ID:~tA,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transect ID: Z~ Z z
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 1D: v0
([f needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Pl
nt Species Stratum ndcator
I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
a C
2. ~~-Vf2>r~ Tor. R ? s ,~ ~ 10.
3.~~~~~',.5 ~15:a~., :s r~.,~ ,1.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or 2 /
FAC (excludng FAC-} /~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
-
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.- Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(rn.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.- -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~4L/~~,r ~i ~O r~~a [O~~-
~
~

SOILS „~,,.
WeJldra~el~ ~e ~
Map Unit Name P L_ Drainage Class: Der ~ ~~ i r'tu~ 5~~ ~S
lSeries and Phaset: 1 ~G/ ~/U ~ /~ f Field Observations
(( AA y i C l..+C J~ rTs ~ d'S/~»~ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes ~J
Taxonomy lSubgroupt: COG. t~-~ /~'~
Profile Description:
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth Matrix Color
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl_ Abundance/Con cast Structure. etc.
_,o a . ~ ~ s~„~----
s~~
ro_r~ ~.5_ ~l
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sutfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Loca{ Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other [Explain in Remarks}
WETLAND DETERMINA710N
- (Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circlet
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL '~
8/93

1
z~ ~2
~,le 1`
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
ProjectlSite: ~ - yd3~ Date: ~ 'a~ -o ~
i
Applicant/Owner: /1/G DD~' County: ~Un S w ;c K
Investigator: ~cj 7 State: /~ L
'e/
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~e No Community ID: ~y ~ ~,; ! J
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypical Situation}? Yes Trensect ID: ZQa Z
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ~ Plot ID: ~ f
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies St
r
a
tum Fndcator Dominant Plartt Species Stratum Indicator
1. ~ . ~~r S -
7
~^
! 4 -l- 9.
2. CCr- .~b.~r., T F~ ,o.

'
5. ~ V/ V rJ_~CZr P A uv
~ H O~ ~ 13
6- ~ r%Sa(->nc ~--: !rte {
~_ O b L ia.
7. (../~ rtl) r~ Cf rP~,~RK I
'
!~l U)7 ~-- 15.
8- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other \Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Avalable -Water Marks
~ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: -
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (Z or more required):
Depth of Surface Water•
• (rn') -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in) -Local Soil Survey Data
~
~ _FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0
(in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS tlel! ~l~q;~ed t o
Map Unit Name ~ ~ ~ ~lno ~~ Drainage Class: l - - ~ ~ r~-.~ ~~r~r~., ~~4~xrd
(Series and Phase}: Qr' ¢O~ y5 1 Fetd Observations
k ~ A _ _ ~ r ~2„~-- Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Taxonomy (Subgroup): COQ. ~* (1
Profile Description:
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Matrix Color Mottle Colors gtnrcture, etc.
Depth (Mun~~_]_ AbundancelCont aLSt
inches Horizon lMunsell Moistl /
~_3 Jp 3 /
d ~-/.~ d; ~ Sid /Q~..,
3-io 6 2 ~
l0 -( 16 3 2
Hydcic Soil Indicators:
- Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on local Hydcic Soils list
_ Listed on National Hydcic Soils List
Other lExplain in Remarksl
WETLAND DETERMINATION
` ~ ~ No (Circle} (Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present.
Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ~ No
No
Hydcic Soils Present?
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL ~~
819 3

1
Cw Z,¢2 7
~~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands De{ineation Manuatl
Project/Site: IJ ~~f0,3 / Date: 9 ~~~^~~
Applicant/Owner: n ~ ~pT County: _fj~,,,i5i,~;~
Investigator: Z 5 X State: r,~L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~s No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Trensect ID: ~.a ~ Z A, a Z
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
_~-
(lf needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plan
t Species S
t
r
a
tum Ind
cator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
tt
1-~in~~ 'tQC. J~ -
-
7
-
I i
/~c 9-
2.~ O r't~ T/5 ~ 10.
i
4. 12.
5- 13_
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (
l
din
F 2/
~ ((
~ C
exc
u
g
AC-) ~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks-: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~r No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required-:

Depth of Surface Water:
- (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ^ (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1
___~/ 1 (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks-
Remarks:
~
n d ~
~
o ~

SOILS
ti.KJf d ra )^e.cl o ~`~
Map Unit Name ~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ Drainage Cass: ~OZ~ r 7 ~'~~~"~
(Series and Phase}; ~6c~ ~TJ ~`~ S Feeld Observation
_ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Taxonomy (Subgroup}:Co~ ~ C Q rl ~ r
Profile Description:
Mottle Texture, Concretions.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
lMun_sell MoistL Abund_ anee/Co- rost Strocture. etc.
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist}
p_i5.~
}{ydric Sol Indicators:
- Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soiis
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks}
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye~ No (Circle}
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No~
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL ''
8193

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/Site: ~ - H03 ( Date: ~ -'~.~ "'~
Applicant/Owner:-~L ~O~ County: F1r+h5w:GtL
Investigator: L S y State: NL
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? Yes~o Trensect ID: Ct„~ /y ~. ~,~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ~ Plot !D: ~ v ~
(!f needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1-Junl~S trder-e~;4h~S N ooL s.
2. ~~(e~c~~L~~-- ~ c~ w '0-
3- 11.
4. 12.
5- 13.
6. 14.
7. 15-
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC 2/ //mar r ~J
2 ~
' ~
(excluding FAC-) G
l C
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data IDescrihe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators 12 or more required}:

Depth of Surface Water: (in
) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
.
~ Water-Stained Leaves
~
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
~~
Depth to Saturated Sail: Q (in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks-

SOILS
Map Unit Name /~ ~~~~ C ~ ~~ r.~ 100. Drainage Class: ULr !fir ~-~,l
(Series and Phase): ft A h r ILA, ~ ~ Fietd Observation
_ 5~/{' Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~~-' ~ r
Profile Descriation:
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
Depth Matrix Color AbundancelCo rost Stnrcture, etc.
(Munsell Moistl_
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
/'~ (~ L >~
Hydric Sol Indicators:
Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_)_r Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
~ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
~ Listed on local Hydric Sols List
~ listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
z ~ No (Circle) (Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present_
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

~r ~
.E ~ f~J.
,~~ a~~~ ~ ~ ,~
~..~ ~ fir: ~' t ~ ]~~ ~. S' : _ `~~.~..~~:~ ~
1
yyy p?~ lr ~ ~~ Y l i V4 # C _y.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { A L-
~V; ~ r `~ n:•. .~ _ ti , .Fat z R~ ,.~-.r ~ ~ ~ ..3{
.A mss. `I '~ ~ -~` ~y.
~ ,,~
~, "tom ~~~~.` ~~}~~~ v',,. e rj,J o-.., i,>~ a , ,1 ~ ~ "w
.6i - ~ ,g,, ~ a =
.t ~'~'" t_ ~ ~x3 $ i- < ~ ~ta~'v~ r i x ~ i s ~ r< h ~ ~ ~=~l i~ C
,ypT'~ ~'`'k ` -v ~~ r~ a 7w'y ! r ~ ~ ~ '' .~ ~'"" yt
P :~1 4 ~~ 2 ~Y f $~ ~ ~",. ~ ~a( ~ f p ~-t ~ rtM.. y R3't'~k l%~~' ~
+s i ~ ~ '~~' ~" Kr .+ Fi IMF ~~ ttN 1 yam", * s F b i
~_:n:
.,ry y Pt ~ b "^' ~F,` '... -. 4 ~7 5 - l ~ ~,yT~ >k ~~ Y 4 1 '.
~. ~, ,~, t ~ "t)' ~l 7. Y ~ ice. ~ l f,~-4 c+ h ~il 3 +~'1 ~ ~ # ~ F / ~
'~?~' 4 'd.,,H _ t ~ # •~p' `~ 3"~ ~ tl S ..P 1 `k' "~f ,i.~ Yx t - r ,p 1 ],~^ .
_ + _{y t t ~N.L ~.M~ air 3 F
c 3.
3 ,
y y p~
'~ ~~' ~ J' ~ ,. ;~,~ ~.' s ~~ r Y !"~9 ~ fiV '~'-ta}~{'~ ~ ,~•~"~ jS ~~' ~ ~ ,Ft~e`{ # `
r
~~ =+~ ~'t - - ~~~~Yr~} ~ {~~ .".. ~.~ ~ ,rv~wi iJ IL`s ~ v ~ %b'` ~ _ `.~ 1!K ~
S _ C b t ..
- 4t '~ ~ ~ r
_ ~ Y
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~t
., - . .
a.
u '. _ ~ ~ a
_. _.
~ ~
~.
~-
--~a•~e~ ~`-i~+ ~
~~
~~
_ .s; ~ ~ V
..
_ _.
.- ^ ~,
a .~~ ~ -~
~~ =
~~~ -' ~
~~ ~ , ~'' ~` .~ .~ rte;:
rY n
_ ~ ~. _+ tom, ~ ,r. s 5 ~ ~'~4~ ~~ r ~
P ~'~[ s t'
-~.
~' ~ f
~i'~q ~~y~~.Y`? .$,~ ~ ~: 4 : , '~~ ~Y`$ fit -~ ,~
~°~ ~ ~ ,~ ~'! .ar-iy. ~t~ ~ ~ ~ etc+ .Y+. '+.'
~.i' ~x ~^y '-' ' ~. ~~~
~..
t ~~ a
~:~,~ _ ~ ~ __ °;.~ ~ e ~ sb
.~ ~. rt ~;
~ & ;
~ ~ rt g
r ~'_ t ~+. i ~ ~ e' .d i..~r Ted 7k' tr. - sr -
~~ J ~ ~' 7~gi A ~i, ~r l .

i
i~
i~
1
1
\ ~ ~whdl6end
~C4/OwhO15
1 ~
c~wha~~
i ~
y~"'13 ~
w/hal2whcl
~wfla11
~ \~
cwhal0
\~wha9
1
t
~wha8 w
U \
~wha7
d4 ~
~iwha6
\\\
\ a5
\ ~pwha4
\ 3
\ \

,s+N,9~f16
\
~WhdS
v. \
~ ~~
~ \
~ \
~ \

W
/ ~
~wZb3 ~
/ \
/ \
// U
~wzb 4
/ ~
/ ~
`wzb5 ~

0
A
Send
\ ~wfid3 "' ` ~ \
2 1
~ \\ ~wtw3 E a10 \~ \~w/za21
\ \ wfio2/whbt ~ \
~ ~ 9 g \
~ wh ~
d1 zb7 I \~w/za20
za't\aCtgrt 3 5 b6 a1 witB~/~7za~c ~/m11 II ,~w/za19
ZZ C rC \ t Pfi/za1E
~\ a3 4 ~ ,~w/za3 „~w/za5 w/za12 I ~
wJza)!~/Io4 ~ ~6~17
~ zat at I t
W ~ yvrizbl
~ ~vzbz bw/zC13 ~
Y \
~~ \ ~ I
Division 3 Bridges
Bridge 4031
Brunswick County, North Carolina
- Surface Water
- Wetland Line
- - - CAMA Wetland Line
- - - Approximate ProJ'ect Study Areo
Based on NCDOT Photo
Project ER00041.12
Ea~iroamental
Ser~ioe~, Ina
Dates SEPT 2001
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Scales 1"-100'
0 100 200 300 Feet
0 50 100 Meters
5