20041938 Ver 1_Complete File_20041202

OTC` 0
?QIMM?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA zoos
?srTF,Q
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?R'`'`ygq ??-
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
December 10, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
LYNDO TIPPETT 0410
SECRETARY
Attention: Mr. Dave Timpy ?39 r,.?? O /,
NCDOT Coordinator Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Request for Modification of Section 404 Permit: Nationwide 23 Permit for the
Replacement of Bridge No. 191 over Great Coharie Creek on SR 1845, Sampson County.
TIP Project No. B4272, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1845(1), State Project No. 8,2281501,
USACE Action ID 200200245.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests to revise its original permit
application submitted on November 24, 2004. It has come to the Departments attention that there was a
scale error in the original permit drawing creating a miscalculation of station numbers and impacts at Site
1. Please find enclosed a revised permit drawing and PCN application for the subject project. The actual
impacts for the construction of the proposed project have been recalculated and will result in 0.015 acres of
permanent fill in riverine wetlands for the placement of rip rap at Site 1(Sta. 11+10 to Sta. 11+77 LR).
Compensatory mitigation for the recalculated unavoidable impacts to 0.015 acres of riverine wetlands
associated with this project will be mitigated by NCDOT through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program as
described in the NCDOT letter dated November 24, 2004.
By copy of this letter and in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of
this revision to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, for their records.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
/0'.- 'Z?'4
Mason Herndon
Division 3 DEO
cc: Nikki Thomson, Division of Water Quality
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page'2 for further details), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: H Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington, N.C. 28401
Telephone Number: (91Q)251-5724 Fax Number: (910) 251- 5727
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mason Herndon
Company Affiliation: Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington, N.C. 28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number; (910) 251- 5727
E-mail Address: mherndon a?dot.state.nc.us
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 191 over Great Coharie Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4272
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): NIA
4. Location
County: Sampson Nearest Town: Newton Grove
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge is located on SR 1845,
approximately 0.5 mi. E of SR 1804.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.1959627° N 78.3641898° W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Great Coharie Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area surrounding the bridge is forestland , powerline
utility corridor and hardwood bottom swamp.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project is to replace the existing 121 ft timber bridge with a 162 ft prestressed
cored slab bridge. Standard bridge construction equipment (crane and backhoeLwill be
used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is in poor condition and has
has a 38.1 sufficiency rating;.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Riverine wetlands impacts will
be 0.015 acres for placement of rip rap
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
11+10 - 11+77 LR fiWrip rap 0.015 Yes adjacent successional swp

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.v-ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.015
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
lease specify)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wail, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Page 8 of 12
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

acres
(if Name applicable) Wateplicablle) e) Type of Waterbody

estuary, sound,
(lake, pond,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Minimization was incomorated into the design by the use of a longer bridge. Best__
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be implemented. Top down construction & 2:1 slopes on rip rap at end bents
An in water moratorium from April 1 to June 30 will also be implemented.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the
greatest extent possible as described above. The remaining unavoidable impacts to 0.015
acres of jurisdictional riverine wetlands will be offset by compensatory miti ag tion provided
by the EEP program. These impacts are to successional coastal plain small stream riverine
wetlands in CFR basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin 030619).
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX, Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify N/A )?
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Miti
gation 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
None
2-/U-D
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NUCHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
..suvFQ
d ?A
November 24, 2004
SECRETARY
-041938
ATTENTION: Mr. David L. Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
1?i @ 12 ME B
DEC 0 2 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 191 over Great
Coharie Creek on SR 1845, Sampson County. Federal Aid Project BRZ-1845(1), State
Project No. 8.2281501, TIP Project No. B4272.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 191
over Great Coharie Creek on SR 1845 in Sampson County.' The contract will be implemented as a Division
Three Purchase Order Contract (POC) project. The existing 7 span, 122.8 ft timber bridge with 22 ft of
clear roadway will be replaced with a longer bridge along the existing alignment. The proposed bridge will
be a 3 span, 162-ft prestressed concrete cored slab bridge with 30 ft of clear roadway. Please find enclosed
three copies of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) document, hydrological report, permit
drawing and half-size plan sheets.
The structure will include two -12 R travel lanes with 3-ft offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 411 feet to the west and approximately
390 feet to the east of the existing bridge. The roadway approaches and bridge grades will approximately
match existing elevations therefore there will be no reduction in navigational clearance. Guardrail will be
installed where warranted and as depicted on the plan sheet. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding
roads during construction.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
This project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin
030619). The proposed bridge replacement is located over the Great Coharie Creek (DWQ Index No. 18-
68-1) Class CSw. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the wetlands for this project on October 10,
2001. Construction of the proposed project will result in 0.03 acres of permanent fill in riverine wetlands
for the placement of rip rap at Site 1 (Sta. 11+40 to Sta. 11+70 LR). There are no stream impacts on this
project. Bridge No. 191 is being constructed using top construction methods to avoid and minimize impact
and therefore there will be no temporary impacts. Rip rap slope protection around the end bents is being
proposed at a 2:1 slope to further minimize impacts. No permanent or temporary utility impacts are
proposed with this project.
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
s
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of timber
bents and caps. The Department will take every precautionary measure necessary to ensure that no
components will be dropped into waters of the United States. The bridge will be removed using top down
methods and NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Based upon the letter from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Wilmington District dated September 1,
2004, it is understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Systems Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the Federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for all NCDOT projects at a 2:1 ratio. It is also NCDOT's
understanding that if the USACE District Engineer determines that compensatory mitigation is required for
any project, it will be submitted to EEP for acceptance on a quarterly basis by the Department with a copy
provided to the Wilmington District office for verification and accounting purposes.
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.03 acres of jurisdictional riverine
wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP program. These impacts are to
successional coastal plain small stream riverine wetlands as identified in the Natural Systems report
(January 2002) and are in the Cape Fear River Basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin
030619).
NATURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists three federally
protected species for Sampson County: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). A Natural Resources Technical
Report and Survey has been completed for this project and a determination of "No Effect" for the listed
species is recommended. In a comment letter dated June 12, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
requested that the 0.5-acre of coastal plain bottomiand hardwood forest within the project area be survey
for Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). No coastal plain bottomland hardwood forest will be impacted by
this project therefore no further surveys were warranted.
ANADROMOUS FISH
Anadromous fish species have not been documented as occurring in the project area. However the project
resides in the Coastal Plain physiographic province and anadromous fish have been documented in the
extreme southern portion of Sampson County, therefore NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish will be utilized to ensure that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous
fish. In consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Department has
committed to an in-water construction moratorium between April I' - June 30* for sunfish spwaning.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservations Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 296 CFR Part 800, this project has
been reviewed and cleared for effects on historical and archeological resources (see attachments).
REGULATORY APPROVAL
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore we do not anticipate requesting
an individual permit but propose to proceed under Nationwide 23 as authorized by a Nationwide Permit (67
FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this project. The
NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the Water Quality Certification. Therefore, in accordance
with 15A NCAC 211, Section 0.500(a), we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact feel free to contact me at (910)
251-5724.
Sincerely,
Mason Herndon
Division 3 DEO
cc:
w/attachment
Ms. Nikki Thomson, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Office Use Only: 8Q Form version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina`s twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: H Allen Pone, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington N.C.28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (910) 251- 5727
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mason Hemdon
Company Affiliation: Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington, N.C. 28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (910) 51- 5727
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No 191 over Great Coharie Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4272
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Samson Nearest Town: Newton Grove
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge is located on SR 1845,
approximately 0.5 mi E of SR 1804 _-
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.1959627° N 78.3641898° W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Great Coharie Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear -
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgp-2.1/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area surrounding the bridge is forestland , powerline
utilfty corridor and hardwood bottom swamp
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project is to replace the existing 121 ft timber bridge with a 162 ft prestressed
cored slab bridge Standard bridge construction equipment (crane and backhoe) will be
used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is in poor condition and has
has a 381 sufficiency rating.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Riverine wetlands impacts will
be 0.03 acres for placement of rip rap
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet
Type of Wetland***
11+40 -11+70 LR fill/rip rap 0.03 Yes adjacent successional swp

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized cleanng, gratung, un,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hqp://www.fema.2ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.001
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leases ecify)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not tnntted to: culverts ana assaciateu rp-?ap,
dams (separately list impacts -due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usas.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tol2ozone.com,
www.m_pauest.com etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Page 8 of 12
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

{if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Minimization was incorporated into the design by the use of a longer bridge. Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be implemented Top down construction & 2:1 slopes on rip ran at_end_bents
An in water moratorium from April 1 to June 30 will also be implemented.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
b"://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the by
the EEP proram These impacts are to successional coastal plain small stream riverine
wetlands in CFR basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin 030619).
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http•//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate: Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify N/A )?
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
(square feet
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; ;gone L extenas an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XU. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction .or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
None
-Ze/-Oc/
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
1 Q may" ?4 8M 185 " ? ?, / -
175
75,
Ilk
y
cv
f 'fir i? f 1 l . COT
F'Co, f ;
a
ret
i
I . ... , fir
•
St Paul
ftIFj!0\ 4180
.
cem
f
r; -\_? - ns 1 '- Gems
.. Cem
'
- 1 -
ham, vr 4 raoz; •_)
Cem rye / ??
,
?. 1834
1 ,
1843 I
' ) Ch
- - j- ' . Gem 1 fd •B
`:. .. _ _ Gem
..-... :. - .... t t 'r 1 f
r m) I
use Pond 1i
S ,\?r`?i 1. _4? •.' 50?
e
_ "rY 180 k?i63
3 0
. ?Ap tt? y ?j ;/ t811? i S {
• TA l\
' ^b3fi? +1 ! r. _
125 BM te/
Name: NEWTON GROVE SOUTH Location: 035.1962167° N 078.3555441 ° W
Date: 11118/2004 Caption: Bridge 191 over Great Coharie Creek
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Markers
Name: BR 191
Short Name: BR191
Coordinates: 035.1959627° N, 078.3641898° W
- CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B4272
State Project No. 8.2281501
Federal Project No. BRZ-1845(1)
A. . Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great
Coharie Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be replaced with an 139-foot
(42.4-m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-
foot (3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 411 feet
(125.3 m) to the west and approximately 390 feet (118.9 m) to the east of the
existing bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will be
detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 191 has a sufficiency rating of 38.1 out of a possible 100. The
deck and substructure of this 51-year old bridge are in poor condition. Therefore,
the bridge needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
0 Brid ge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad. crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of'
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used.
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
2
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 650,000
Right of Way $ 28,000
Total $ 678,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - .700 vpd
Year 2025 - 1100 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 11-foot
(3.4-m) lanes and 5-foot (1.5-m) grassed shoulders. The shoulder width will be
increased to 8 feet (2.4 m) where guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
60 mph„(100 km/h)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Three Construction Office concurs in the recommendation to
replace Bridge No. 191 in approximately the same location as the existing bridge
while detouring traffic along surrounding roads. _
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 191 contains seven spans totaling 120 feet (36.6 m) in length.
The bridge is composed of a reinforced concrete deck with timber joists. The
substructure is composed of timber bents, end bents and piles. The resulting
temporary fill asociated with Bridge No. 191 is approximately 46.9 yd3.
3
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project, involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? (See Note) X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
4
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? ?
X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel

changes? ?
X
SOCIAL; ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on

the existing facility? ?
X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
5
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ?
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding a unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
3 According to the Natural Systems Technical Report,
"Anadromous fish species have not been documented by
Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the project study area.
However, because the study area is located in the Coastal
Plain physiographic province, NCDOT's Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish should be utilized to ensure
that the replacement of the bridge will not impede
anadromous fish."
Note The minimum acrage of wetland impacts allowed without
on 4. requiring mitigation has been reduced from 1/3 acre to 0.1
acre. The proposed project impacts approximately 0.094
acres of wetlands. All efforts to avoid and minimize
impacts to the wetlands have been made. The existing
bridge will be replaced in the existing location and at the
existing elevation. The proposed bridge will be longer
than the existing bridge to accommodate the spillthrough
end bents. Top-down construction methods will be used to
both remove the existing bridge and build the proposed
bridge. Therefore, work pads will not be required for
construction. Traffic will be maintained with an offsite
detour.

6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-4272
8.2281501
BRZ-1845(1)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great
Coharie Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be replaced with an 139-foot
(42.4-m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-
foot (3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 411 feet
(125.3 m) to the west and approximately 390 feet (118.9 m) to the east of the
existing bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will be
detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
Date
Date Karen B. Q
Project Dev
For Type II (B) projects only:
,?Z 71b"31
Date
Goa, y??
E., oject Development Engineer
it & Environmental Analysis Branch
Y Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
Bridge Replacement Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
.r
c
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 4
Top-down construction will be used in the removal of the existing bridge and the
construction of the proposed bridge. The Structure Design Unit will place all appropriate
notes on the final design plans to this effect.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit,
Structure Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
The wetland impacts will continue to be monitored throughout the final design process.
If the wetland impacts exceed 0.1 acre, then a mitigation plan must be completed for
permitting purposes. Any sift in the proposed horizontal alignment will necessitate the
need to re-evaluate the proposed alternative for this project. All attempts to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts will be further refined in the final design phase.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadside Environmental Unit,
Division 4
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish will be utilized to ensure
that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish. Anadromous fish
species have not been documented as occuring in the project study area. However, the
project resides in the Coastal Plain physiographic province and anadrom. - %ave
been documented in the extreme southern portion of Sampson County.

e.. STATE.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary -
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preser.-a-Iton Office
David L S. Brook. Administrator
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch MAR 2 8 2002
Division of Highways
Departtnent of "Transportation
FROM: David Brook
cfi
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 257 and SR 2824 over Richland Creek, B-4272.
Randolph County, ER 02-8579
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National
Register eligibility, of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register
eligibility of the subject bridge. Please contact INIarv Pope Furr, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further study of the bridge is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 296
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley environmental review coordinator,.at 919/72929-47629. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Nlailing'Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 3
Survc% l Plannin_- 5 15 V. Blount St. Raieish. NC 4018 %1:61 Sen ice Cena-r R:IleiA '7600__1n IR

Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
4-
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 9733-8653
[phone] .715-4801

OCT-13-2004 17:59
NCDOT OHE-ONE
919 715 1501 P.04
- ..I
?S1VE6
e?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley. Governor
UACEh C. Evam. Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow. Deputy Secretary
April 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM
MQY 5 2003 0
01J ` ?
zoti, r 0EVra .. 0y3
Division o
David J. Olson. Director
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project. Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC1)OT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook J?,?S"%4t=-' • _.
SUBJECT: Federal Programmatic Categorical Exclusion BRZ-1845(1),
Bridge R.eplacement No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek,
Sampson County, State Project 8.2281501; n- M- f 02-8574
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2003, transmitting the Categorical Exclusion (CE)
for the above project. We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic
resources.
The above comments are made ptiu-suant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 100 codified at 36 CTR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all. future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Nicholas Graf
www.h o.dcr.state.nc.us
Lueation Mailing Address Tdepbonc/Frar
A1)M1t1Nt9TRATl0N S07 N. l3lount St., Raleigh NC.' 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTOR UTION 51S N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC' 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-1801
e i c wt u.,t..i,.t, Nr- 461 R Mail Scrvice Center. Raleigh NC 27699-461$ (9191TOTAL5 - 715-4801
___ __ nnT nn la 9R% P.04
Np?
=D/
i p5I jtj N,Yl i\ORTH)

f
i?
kil
6 ;
LEFT SIDE; (LOOKING EAST)
'o't i ?

o I to
n
m O 00 VN
n o
n
00 0o N
pa •
xA I I I b ? ti
m'^
nc
A m
V V X'
jD W W W N
Nm O? Q) tD ? i
W W W N N A
G O w O
D ? m a v
1
Z
o mmn O?om^? X
m mnry__
m o vm A
E OJZCAr?y? V)
N TJX N ?NO'?? i -I
:z
D
N r O? o
4 iv m M-
AK4.S? • N mm m
ro ?? yx Z D
yy ?. ga?yy • \ ?? ?? W = -,
y •, F? .n COW om a
.SO •??II N 61 D
y ]
O N
O W
0
a
0
0
y
O
N
A
O '
d k C
'^ I $ k
k
cn
O i
+ II
II /
i
K.
O
CO
O
0

0
+
O
O
0
O
?«Qo
N

l (
]
= ay 1.1 n o
m n n y A
_
1 0
°
r I
? y
n l 6
r 4 0 ?
N
n I Z
li
l
o A
m ? ^
A _
^ N ?.
I = A I D _a 1
D
N N w
m l
N O
u
l w
m
N
F?
nnD
CHA
k

z
0
mm
t
O Oz I
<O
O
m ?
? I '^
m
O
I
I
?
m
mo
z A
?,
I

? D
I m
V N
<
?? to

I TN Oy
?> y'
m m
? I2n ?
x y ? O
m

I
O
_)

?I
F ?
F 0 V 00
m
0
T ?
N
in?m<~oo ?I bl y
K
k d??
k k
k
BREA7 CORNbE CREEK ?'V--
NW .
N -i0
MM,
Mr- mr-)
wm7 r0
n< ip
W a)
npN '(A
N
Oc, 1
NZ
? Z
Z :pm
n
Z.N
rl N
- N
m ON
+ p
? N
V N
m
k
/K k
c!+,?- k
k ("'T k .. k
k rte/ '/ /
3 ? k
T
.E?' `\ GREAT - ..-
E.r
V N
++
Vo
O /'' T N
O on I I m
y I O
xo ? I
w
k ?f Y I
°o I N
m
\N I Co
K- J al
+
pl
O I 'I
k I I
I
O /
k k? ?\f w? i?? I I? k 1
J R
O
O

o r on
D O yA N O00 O 00 ?j

•
M ?6J
m o AN

N O
Z m E m
Ul W N
W
? T

-
v_ M
y N mD -
i WNW
ncncn L4
cf)
o
C? I\V(?
l?i/9
000 D z
Q i
D
z
? ooo
m
7Ti
?
N
Ry1m m
(fl Co
•
ZZy
L
I u
10 N D
0
?
N'
n C
(A
F mTN
npm r
ra
T71"' O
O m
Z
vc Vl O
N 0
m
0? ; N2nO n ??''``?? l
/1
= Z O An =

?m
N
Om ? O
O
r NO N
o
O
o
n m z
0

N
n fTl
Z? O
n-
O?
M
?
m
0o
- z
m
F
D ?
W O
co -0
a? x V)
--i
Om
m --A
A
C
(-)
N
m
lp
C
j:
k

oz
n
0
it
x
I
I I
?
k
w?
\ N
\ A
I w I
W

I •?

'

D f
N
A
?
2
D
N

D

0

D

0 >
N D
N -a
A A O
o z N M Z
A
o
O c
D p
<
C m G
o n n O A
D
N
Z7
z -I
m W
Z n
A D
° -i V)
{
r y Z
3
'
w
D o D
Z o n n i
m ?i
N

ti f
N C D
m iy
A N im
:9
m m
m y r
Z iT
A
A m dim
> z?
;om o`n

?
>z A
aNfvni
?m ''TT
k
°
m
I N
W
° I
?I
° ? I Q
I
00
c\i #
°
o i-- ° ? °
`q- z I
+ H °
O I
a
Q
V) o I °
e
°
°
°
m
w °
CD
z
H
cn 1 a v
x 3 ??
w CLm
kAj
H Q
LL
Lli
I H
\? I H
L)LA
I V) ??
I J Ja
i u
° I (1 ? ? ??N?eJ
I I \
I I
I I

3
3
e
O
E
P
Y
3
n
Z
11
N
g

/a
a
?, /a 10+00
zn
Z N
a/HO p
H 00
iS
"` SEEK
I?r? 11+00 \
??
? O
? N ?
r
tb
? e'7 ?
r
?' m s
y
A
0
O
/ U
a i
a
m
r
II ?
W+
00
0
00
N
N

W
8

p4?8oo4?
g'
(o
8'
+
b
0
?a
s
4
a
w
a
O
s
M
0
s
A
F

A
8
r?o?
. g
ti
ogoz
N y
n
? N
O
T
rr ?nlyZ
?N ?`?mv
N ?r?N
mH L77
DH Ism
? t+?ul
nHA ?W
H
a
v

ti
k

W
b
y ? in
? t
y?
`^
fd Q
t - - -
J °4
'V ? p \ ? rn
K
?
2 ? to
T
Y w
x `?

J N
F)nW
Vl ZO
-I H H
D OZ
J rm
+ X
O H
O H
+ 0
H O
O
m I+
x m
H m
N D
H
z m
O A
7+00
W --I
tD 3
r ••
-4z
a
O r
m
H
-4 z
D Ip
D
4 m
0 O
Om
°o?
'0
I H
K-
r c>
?? D
c?0-4 ?A
HD-I? O
N>
OT U;H
HRH ?r
? Z7 L7n \
0
I zz?

l o?n
\ ?r d H

D w I
i m?Ao
H
ti

C 2 \ m
H
\ X70 C) Z=H
~ \ W
N ? H
?O W ? \
D D
?? 7C ?W
l'? m
m
r ?? ti

y

?? /
`

/ a
I _
N ? I`
m
m
?
A2 AQ ? ' ? c

r0

u n
i
C /

v N m
mm

N
~m
?
??
N? a
m as r +
i 8
00

N
C .?
W N
-I W
m
I

?
<
<
j O D
tD O
H
Z •. I ?Zlf') / d
I o a : I ?vn a
x
o ?j ?
?n : y HAW
I
?
a
H
z Ln
Ln ?
D
". I
= • 4 ,a
/
a ?
?
? N
n
?
a
I= 1
> ' o 9+00 /
a
H
(r W
a I
a
\ n
D H
-I +
? /
/
O
D H
m ?
H ? (Hn a
/
O
' /
Y ' m

' A H m
X
I O y
CO H
O N
H /d

H
Z7 H
Z
a

I W
WLB0 - ., - J
n
I m

_ v

k
Vf
?l
? l N
?1
1r
,
I ?
(nrN
`
H
V1W U k

R
W-
?
?
N
G1? k k

L"'
cn
?N
?I Cm'?
A
„o w„
H(7
c?
mN ?N?? +
v
atNi.
3
??
-n
N
W H
0
,
Z7 V
H? 1+rW
C? H
W
v N
M
D
O uw

N
?
z
' ® ®
^?
O S
m ?
p
z
g i
?

m
4L

g
O
vo ?
op
z?
A?O7o
? I??
zm
NZ4-i
z
o
+ y
m
Z? aw
O z%
_ W
?O GJ
? p.
W
m
r ?
II +
O)
419)
.•. co
(n-?
mv'
I ?
r ?
D
0
?m
? v
D
aD
to m
r_
II +
(n
?N
WN
61
m
r
u ?
w cn
•- O
0
1X \
I
.O
C cn
D
Sl '?j
?0 ?
?> CO
nH ?
'r
H ? 1
z n
c) v
O
m H O
W z co
? ?Zo
V1 W d
-? N
D
+
O
12+00
Ln
13+00
I
> I
I
I
o I
ti I
?z^.• m
Hm ?-x
W ZD p7 Ln
7u
'. 7J 01 "'• H
n O - N o
>Z=D
H
D ?1 • O
zra o
'vo -•m
o -•
', HZI ,I a. n
H O
coz N
m H
?N• u?
'Dz =N
Imp o
M zD N •n
$A a -4
N'H ?? N
z v
-4 0=.-. D
v = z
• V1
m
n
A a
A
o -?
n
v
? n
-C ?
'0 i
v
I? m

m
D <

+ m

y'8'q
?^
o H
n
X he'd +

N
O C)

O

> W C7
.-P -+
O
a• r

m
x ,?
H >
N a
H H
H
Z m
14+00
15+00
.4 w ro
Y
xN m x? ??Y?Pn Cr2.l
zo ? s?s? Innti?2ic?
F? h? y
A i ? c YI?mFoga
p m z ?? a rn ° w ,., o
°x ? O? N.. $ ynipl?lp y
ao i ` C ?Y pm k ?I
ymm ? ao ?n ST?pr2n^?°ii
m=8 "??°o
p2 ti 'y' ?N ? n°SC?°Vti
P S ` Nb??6AF
?bA?R$m
A Stify
yc tD ? O? O?nm
2 M S
z rn ? o
a n?
Ri
v
v
1a sa "ti.'?i"'?y y?iv
?^?'n ? ??? 2 T{?iiN?n? Ofii
?o o ?A`^ m`?'?3m?`? mT
ti H? °2 F'n`n? ??? °?ii ?Oa
4 x^ yE?3 c $rw °°
ms ? 8?? ?mi?2m9o'" ?+?
mg ti?? ?ooy"I `y'? y?
?S n2, A Coga°? 2
t2i?A Iron ro? OA?rn? 2 2?
°a. o$? gP? p npN
o ?? IC ?B
2 S(2i1 mmx my°ro ;
N? ??Q 2rl" ??
N ?ti y- m x mn$,
y2 'IZYsI~n° iJ?
y Am° ym=g 3 yx
m?s? ?2-oy?"' viio
? ?ro ? ? ti ?
n TN g?RAA= ??
y Z
%rh ?$Aoti
? en o°?? v i
o to irons ?o

Z tie ?
tv r .J
N W W A
I

?
g
apa

L $ $
J J J J
O O
O Vl O Vi W W A
O (n O
I OR
O
N
U1
r
N
lTt
(11
O
pd ® l -oy0o

a td rY ic`
Z
0 ? n
N Z 0
Z -?
o 0 Z

m
e W O
1
0 DO
w ?
1 m N
o a o e ®
9 1
w 1
n m
M 0
N
z
O O g S o O
.t?
O ?F
lz? g DD L
C
i
m he My V®

r (D P
1
10 W
01%
47
~ W
? S
fit
F g
7

N
U7
r
N
U1
Ui
O
s
W
0
s
w
0
A
H
m

O?

N 70 (n n -0
m --I
-V 00
py m ZM
nQ
m r)

W O
yz>1
n??
P
L
tlt

O''` w
m .u
1
s m
'0
?
ZO S
g Z
vn(n
Q Z
v
w

? ?a7
?
a
W
a
? V =7

S
s"
b
R ti
b
a ?
?yy
g X
L
S

N W W p
Cn . O Ln O
O
N
r
N
(T?
Ul
q
i
? j -4
9
N W
J J W .A - N W ?' ?
tJt O cn O to O Ul O Ul O UCA)
l o
CCC Y
a N ..
G ?
s
Y
i 4
Y
C
v
N
V1
r
N
N
O
* . . 9
H
fix EH14fl]4
a
I' CS I
J J ? J J J
Cn O w p N W
N W C?11 O tNJI O CIl O V7 O to r?i i n ? W

W
A N W W A
O (Jt O Ut O C1) o to n
to Ul
ti
h E

? a

b = El I

t
S
E $ $ 11 11 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
U
C
N
V
r
N
Ut
O
0
s
H
m

FEB 2 8 2002
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 191
on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek
Sampson County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4272
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 00-ES-12
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
/oRTH cq?o
2
' NW O2
OF TRN SeO
January 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Qualifications ................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Definitions .................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................3
2.1 Soils .............................................................................................................3
2.2 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................7
3.1 Terrestrial .....................................................................................................7
3.2 Aquatic .........................................................................................................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................................10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................................................................................... 11
4.1 Waters of the United States ...........................................................................11
4.2 Permit Issues ................................................................................................13
4.3 Protected Species .........................................................................................14
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NPDES Permitted Discharger Located on Great Coharie Creek ........................... 6
Table 2. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area for B-4272 ............................ 8
Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected From Great Coharie Creek Creek .............10
Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters ...................................................12
Table 5. Federally Protected Species Listed for Sampson County, NC ............................14
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Sampson County, NC ...................16

i

1
Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek
' Sampson County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4272
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
191 on State Road (SR) 1845 over Great Coharie Creek in Sampson 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-4272 is approximately 2.7 acres (1.1
hectares[ha]) in size based on the map provided by the NCDOT and is located
approximately 1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers[km)) east of McLamb Crossroads, NC.
' 1.2 Purpose

r
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; 3) a preliminary
assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 4) a preliminary determination
of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped project study
area and does not take into account 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 Newton Grove South, NC (1997) 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) mapping was also consulted to determine what potential wetland types
may be encountered in the field. The Soii Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina
(USDA 1985), and recent aerial photography (1 inch = 100 feet) furnished by the NCDOT
were also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
1

The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands.
Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and field verified.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina 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 et al. (1968).

I

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 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Water resource information for Great Coharie Creek was derived from the most recent
versions of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000), Basinwide
Assessment Report. Cape. Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999), and 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 Sampson County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation.
In addition, NC Natural Heritage Program (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 al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985),
Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
Information regarding Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species was requested via a
letter to Mr. David Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
dated August 7, 2001.
Additional information regarding construction moratoria has also been requested from the
NCWRC.
1.4 Qualifications
The field investigation associated with B-4272 was conducted on 31 July 2001 by ESI
' staff. Jeff Harbour is the Project Manager for this Natural Resource Technical Report 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 Kevin Lapp, Eric Renninger, Lauren Cobb,

and Charles Kaufman. Mr. Lapp has a M.S. in Biology and more than three years of
professional experience. Mr. Renninger has a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science and
' more than 2 years of professional experience. He also has been certified by DWQ in
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Procedures. Ms. Cobb has a B.S. in Natural
Resources and more than 1 year of professional experience. 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 located on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek east of McLamb
' Crossroads in Sampson County, North Carolina. The project study area is approximately
670 feet (198 meters) in length and ranges in width from approximately 80 feet (24 m) to
' approximately 250 feet (76 m). The bridge is located approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) east
of the intersection of SR 1845 and SR 1804.
' The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 km) on all sides of the
project study area.
I 2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
' The project study area is located in the inner 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 120 to 135 feet (37 to 41 m) above
' sea level (USGS 1974). The project study area consists of existing maintained rights-of-
way, bottomland hardwood forest, powerline rights-of-way, and successional areas.
The project vicinity is rural in nature and surrounding land use includes a mixture of
residential, agricultural, and silvicultural use. Important products from this area include
tobacco, soybeans, corn, cotton, timber, turkeys, chickens, hogs, and cattle.
2.1 Soils
The project study area crosses two soil mapping units. The first mapping unit is comprised
' of two soils series, the Bibb and Johnston series (Typic Fluvaquents and Cumulic
Humaquepts). The second mapping unit is comprised of the Chipley series (Aquic
Quartzipsamments). Hydric soils that are mapped as occurring within the project study
area include Bibb and Johnston soils, which are frequently flooded. Non-hydric soils that
are mapped as occurring within the project study area includes only Chipley sand, which is
' moderately well drained.
From a broader perspective, the project study area is located in one soil association (USDA
11985). The project study area along Great Coharie Creek is located in the Johnston-Bibb
3
association. This soil association contains nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly
drained soils that have a loamy or sandy surface layer and loamy or sandy underlying
material.

L?
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030619 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (USGS 1974). Great Coharie
Creek is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement
project. This stream has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-68-1 by the DWQ
(DWQ 2001). Great Coharie Creek originates from Blackmans Pond in Sampson County
and flows south to its confluence with the Black River south of the project study area.
Great Coharie Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
mud, sand, and silt. Bottomland hardwood forest and a powerline right-of-way occur along
the edges of Great Coharie Creek. The channel ranges from approximately 40 to 60 feet
(12.2 to 18.3 m) wide and depths range from approximately 1 foot (0.3 m) to greater than
5 feet 0.5 m). Preliminary observations indicate that this particular section of Great
Coharie Creek may represent a "C" 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. Great Coharie Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C Sw (DEM
1993, DWQ 2001). 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 that are different from adjacent streams. Great Coharie Creek is
rated as "Fully Supporting" from Blackmans Pond to the Black River. "Fully supporting" is
a rating given to a water body that fully supports its designated uses and generally has
good or excellent water quality (DWQ 2000).
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II
Waters occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream of the project
study area. Great Coharie Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic
River, nor as a national Wild and Scenic River.
' Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. In 1998, monitoring sites in 19 of the 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear
4

' River Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates
from Great Coharie Creek were sampled in August 1998 on SR 1214, which is
' approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) downstream from the project study area. This site
received a bioclassification rating of Good-Fair in 1993 and 1998 (DWQ 2000). 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 the
fish communities. No NCIBI monitoring results are documented for the Great Coharie
' Creek watershed.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
' Essential Fish Habitat EFH is defined b the National
( ) y Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
' "those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
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
t (NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on
EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) 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 the agency review
period for the proposed project, the COE makes the
' 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.
' ESI has reviewed the most recent species list prepared by NMFS pertaining to EFH, and all
listed species are either marine or estuarine in nature and do not occur in the project study
area. EST's opinion based on best professional judgment and reviewing pertinent literature
' and regulations is that the proposed project should not have any detrimental effect on EFH.
1 5

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 2000). 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)
permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is one permitted point source discharger
located on Great Coharie Creek (DENR 2001). This discharge is listed in Table 1.
Table 1. NPDES Permitted Discharger Located on Great Coharie Creek (DENR 2001).
Permit Facility Receiving Stream Discharge Distance from
(MGD) study area
N00025569 Town of Garland Great Coharie 0.126 Approx. 29
Wastewater Treatment Plant Creek Miles (46 km)
downstream
No evidence of non-point source discharges was observed in Great Coharie Creek during
the field investigation.
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.
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 have been requested from the NCWRC.
6

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES

I
I

I

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. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. 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. One natural plant community occurs within
the project study area and two additional communities result from human activities. These
communities total approximately 2.5 acres (1.0 ha), which does not include the open
water attributed to Great Coharie Creek.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater subtype) - Coastal Plain
Bottomland hardwood forest covers approximately 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) [20 percent] of the
project study area. This plant community is associated with floodplains of smaller streams
and often is semi-permanently flooded. This plant community type is located on both the
north and south sides of SR 1845, west of Great Coharie Creek. The tree and shrub strata
are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Groundcover species consist of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), lizard's tail (Saururus
cernuus), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata), and common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia).
Successional Land - Successional land covers approximately 0.9 acre (0.4 ha) [36 percent]
of the project study area. The successional land is a cutover located north and south of
SR 1845 and east of Great Coharie Creek, with no tree-sized material present. Shrub
species consist of groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), red maple, and sweetgum.
Groundcover species consists of giant cane, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), wool-grass
(Scirpus cyperinus), soft rush (?uncus effusus), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 1.1 acre (0.4
ha) [44 percent] of the project study area. Maintained/disturbed land can include
roadways, roadsides, maintained residential yards, powerline right-of-way corridors, and
areas where other human related activities dominate the landscape. Roadsides and
powerline rights-of-way are typically maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. Species
observed within the road rights-of-way include blackberry (Rubus betulifolius), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), and muscadine grape.
7

The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on aerial photograph
base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community within the
project study area is presented in Table 2. 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. Additionally, the open water area attributed to the Great
Coharie Creek channel is not included in this assessment.

Table 2. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4272.
Plant Community Approximate Area in Acres (Hectares)
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.5 acre (0.2 ha)
Successional Land 0.9 acre (0.4 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed Land 1.1 acres (0.4 ha)
Total 2.5 acres (1.0 ha)
Note: Acreage of open water attributed to the Great Coharie Creek channel, 0.2 acres (0.1 ha) is
not included.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Mammals
directly observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Other
mammals expected to occur in and around the project study area include such species as
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and rodents such as beavers (Castor canandensis)
and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli). Insectivores such as southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris) and southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) may also be present in
the project study area.
Terrestrial reptiles observed within the project study area included black racer (Coluber
' constrictor). Other terrestrial reptiles expected in the project study area include such
species as green anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
I

The only terrestrial or arboreal amphibian observed was the green tree frog (Hyla cinerea).
Other terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur in the project study area include
such species as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
Avian species directly observed within the project study area include mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Other more common
species expected to occur in the study area include such species as northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
8

' ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile caro/inensis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),
and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
' Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study area is typically adapted to life
in fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be minor. Due to the lack of, or
limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement 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 associated with B-4272 includes
Great Coharie Creek and portions of the adjacent bottomland hardwood forest where
intermittent flooding is evident. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic
vegetation were observed in the channel during the field investigation.
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-fishing and visual observation of stream
banks and channel within the project study area were conducted in Great Coharie Creek to
document the aquatic community. The depth of the channel and unstable substrate limited
the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish species documented in Great Coharie Creek during the field investigation include
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), blue-spotted
sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea), and lined topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus). These species are common
inhabitants of blackwater streams and associated back waters in this region. Coastal Plain
streams are often used by anadromous fish species such as striped bass (Morone saxatillis)
and several species of shad (Alosa spp.) Menhinick (1991) does not document these
anadromous fish as occurring in the upper reaches of Great Coharie Creek; however, some
of these species have been documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the extreme
southern portion of Sampson County. Additional information regarding the pertinent
fisheries resources of this area has been requested from the NCWRC.
Great Coharie Creek provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the following
species are expected to occur in the project study area: green frog (Rana clamitans),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia tasciata), and
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
9
I
Aquatic birds expected to utilize this portion of Great Coharie Creek include such species
t as wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas piatyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea aiba), green
heron (Butorides virescens), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).
I
LJ

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted pursuant to current DWQ
methodologies. These surveys included kick-net surveys, limited bottom sampling, and
walking all streambanks in the project study area to locate freshwater mussel middens.
Kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within the channel of Great
Coharie Creek produced various aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 3 provides a list of the
benthic organisms collected and identified to Order and Family when possible.
Identifications are based on McCafferty (1998).
Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected from Great Coharie Creek.
Order Family
Odonata Coenagrionidae
Libellulidae
Hemiptera Corixidae
Diptera Chironomidae
Culicidae
Coleoptera Haliplidae
Ephemeroptera Sipulonukidae
Bastidae
Megaloptera Sialidae
Hirudinea
Oligochaeta
Pelecypoda
Amphipoda
DecaDoda
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of B-4272 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 2; 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
10

acclimated to fragmented landscapes, and the bridge replacement should not create any
additional detrimental conditions within the project study area.
1

1

Aquatic Communities
The replacement of B-4272 will likely cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities
in and around the project study area. Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat
will be avoided by bridging Great Coharie Creek 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 this
stream channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order
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.
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 not been
documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the project study area. However,
because the study area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, NCDOT's
Stream Crossing Guidelines 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 (CWA). 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
11

I

s

support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas [33 CFR 328.3(b)(1986)).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Two wetland types occur within the project study area. The surface waters within the
channel of Great Coharie Creek and the adjacent floodplain exhibit characteristics of
palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C) pursuant
to Cowardin et a/., (1979). Although these areas may be riverine influenced, they are still
considered palustrine according to Cowardin et a/., (1979).
The successional wetland areas east of Great Coharie Creek exhibit characteristics of
palustrine, scrub/shrub, broad-leaved, temporarily flooded wetland (PSS1A); this area has
been logged since the publication of the NWI map which labels this area as PF01.
ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of these wetland areas based on current COE
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble ' Global Positioning
System (GPS) units. Field verification is to be conducted by the COE on October 9 and 10,
2001. Table 4 contains the approximate acreage of the two wetland types occurring
within the project study area. The wetland area for each individual wetland type is
approximated based upon aerial interpretation; however, the total wetland acreage is based
upon the GPS mapping results and the defined project study area provided by NCDOT.
Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters.
' Wetland Type Approximate Area in Acres Linear Feet (meters)
(Hectares)'
PF01 C 0.3 acre (0.1 ha) 250 linear feet (76 m)
PSS1A 1.2 acres (0.5 ha) 0.00 linear feet (0.0 m)
Total': 1.5 acres (0.6 ha) 250 linear feet (76 m)
e Based on individual wetland types as mapped on aerial photograph.
' n Based on result of the GPS maps and study area limits provided by NCDOT.
Anticipated impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be determined
during the design phase of this project. Actual impacts will be limited to right-of-way
widths and will be less than the amounts described in Table 4.

12

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)(23))
has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a
General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will
require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under
General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be
needed 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. Bridge construction or replacement over navigable waters may require U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115.
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 Great Coharie Creek 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.
Minimization - 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
impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas
within wetlands. Spanning Great Coharie Creek will also serve to minimize direct impacts
to the stream channel.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation could be required for this project if it does not meet
the criteria for a CE pursuant to NWP #23. 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.
Little opportunity for on-site or directly adjacent mitigation exists with the exception of the
current causeway traversing Great Coharie Creek's floodplain. The existing causeway and
approach to the existing bridge could possibly provide on-site wetland restoration if the
new bridge is designed to span the floodplain so that the existing fill can be removed.
13

1

Removal of fill may also be an option if the new bridge is to be located in a different
location; however, constructing a new bridge in a different location will result in additional
wetland impacts.
4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species
listed for Sampson County (FWS list dated 12 April 2001) are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Federally Protected Species Listed for Sampson County, NC.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)' N/A
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No effect
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E No effect
T(S/A) = Threatened due to si milar appearance

1

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 1995). 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. Reviews of NHP records do not indicate
any occurrences of this species within 3.0 mikes (4.8 km) of the project study area (most
recent review date 20 December 2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Applicable
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed
as T(S/A).
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - This small woodpecker (7 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 al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature
southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pious taeda), longleaf (P. paiustris), slash (P.
14

ellioth), 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/mixed 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 or 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. Reviews of NHP records do not indicate any occurrences of this species within
3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area (most recent review date 20 December 2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No 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. The bottomland hardwood forest
within the project study area is dominated by hardwoods (> 50%) and is not
considered suitable habitat since no adjacent potential foraging habitat is
present. No RCW cavity trees were identified within the project study area.
Pondberry - Pondberry, also known as Southern spicebush, is a deciduous shrub with a
limited distribution occurring in two portions of the southeastern United States, the
Mississippi Valley and the coastal plain of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Pondberry ranges in
height from 1.5 to 6 feet (0.6 to 2.4 m). It has small, pale yellow flowers that appear in
late February through March. In the Carolinas pondberry occurs along the margins of sink
holes, ponds, and pineland depressions (FWS 1993). Within North Carolina, potential
habitat for pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds with sandy substrate, especially
sites containing pondspice (Litsea aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a
combination of pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) with loblolly pine and red maple
(Leonard 1995). Reviews of NHP records do not indicate any occurrences of this species

15
1
within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area (most recent review date 20 December
2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No habitat for pondberry occurs within the project study area. ESI has
surveyed for pondberry on several prior occasions in Sampson County as
part of separate NCDOT projects and is familiar with the specific habitat
requirements. A reference population of pondberry present in adjacent
Cumberland County has been inspected by ESI within the past six months.

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 and Hall 1999) within the project study area has been evaluated for the FSC
species listed for Sampson County (Table 6).
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Sampson County, NC.
Common Name Scientific Name State Potential
Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestiva/is SC N
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC(PT) Y
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR(PSC) N
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC(PT) N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC(PT) N
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana SR N
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC N
Butternut Juglans cinerea W N
White wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC N
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C N
Carolina bogmint Macbridea carofiniana T Y
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna T N
A liverwort Cvlindrocolea andersonii W Y
* E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W - Watch List, P - Proposed,
SR - Significantly Rare.
No FSC were observed during the field investigation and NHP files do not document any
occurrences of FSC species within 2.0 miles (3.2 km) of the project study area.
16

1

r

1

1

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. Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xis on 1 September 2001.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2001. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin.
http:h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies, downloaded on 19
September 2001.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River
Basin. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 420
PP.
DWQ. 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 274 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera meiissifoiia).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
FWS. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
Concern, By County, in North Carolina. Sampson County, NC. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Asheville NC. List date 12 April 2001.
17

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
I
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.
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.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
me/issifoiia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
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.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA. 448pp.
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.
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.

18

r

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 117 pp.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
USGS. 1997. Newton Grove South, 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.
19
r )) -
1143± '
)NI
l` ` t
1 Jam) J .J
IOU
lit
?? a
C? '" ?`? ter' ???;??'•"??'''?? ?rNJ !/? -c 'r',?1..'^'. ? 1' ;b• ??
. ? ":?4 ?- ?'!iJ • ,, -.`--^? : _i •. J rift ? . k'?'?- t c T.?
Z"r
7. i
`? , - ?r..7 ?• V?-I)S?r??.' 1? ? ? ?v? \ f ? . ? ., ,!v ? ?11'?l r v?-' ` 1, r I - O `- •`. _ - .4,
qs;
Ztffiv
i
`• ? 1. ?'?.` `???- ? l / / rr? L ,.
Cem t
1 1845 Ce"' 77; "V,
i', 6.05 `,y
i •..1?'? ) / tl ?' /? 'mot '?!j • ..-' -• - I
Sa x ? ?- ./
0t
•-_ ?y1• t 7:, - i'L •' C@rt1 •,? iljptt'-
'?"-. J ??•?- ?'_?/.%??\' ?° -'•? - ,:??? .?' .: ? .. . - ( .-?? ? :t : % f-7-? X775 ?i,.?
/ I :•v `..': ? : Cem; :, ?f j =?::?. ;
foatses Fond
\ ?l l- ? •?.,? a ???• r'.' .. 3w?? ,3.? ?.i??r! ?? ? "-?\ "c ? _. IvJS ? E ? t f
-71
3 r zr : ` r 1
???• _.? s ? y F 1 ?s.a. + ? ? `'?. °?? ,??f ? ? ?'_? 764 " r > ? ??;• y'ti..?
_ •! -?-? `1 '°' r?q?7?,(
l i$4S i -l t'../. d 1 153b t rr.5 e? ,ry~ fx:. ; '? f %: J r ?r i rte ?`
-- {, _ ` }? ? t ? "ii ' ? ' :4A ?. ,?' e ?? ? . ?r } rl. r l Jti:.. • ` =?^ 1 `? y
44
i?+-•`s .. :•?``?.:?"'.,?.-.""L ?`-,rf 5` i _:lam - 1fT.'`•', `--J . - - ,' ?..... j" w ?..?;
f]/?y/f ?.•ty.i. j1. ,. t .. rl'?Ti ??` Y??P',. ?-l: --.?/.../. -? ` `.T"F' •,"-r a
J ;- ti F
\J ? ? ? ? - w•yM.y,??r '?`? t n'. SF` ? 4.,?????v. y .r' s_•rv:.?.t'?` ? ??
?; t7B i ??,: `'.+'\ -o-3( ? i 3.y`"•.. ';i+ ? ?" 7 (. 1• „y. { +;f s.f;. ' ;
t ? ! c_" /? t r" ? ' t „?; wiz r f ?k C?, _. •1•.,1._ "?

¦

tl
V
L
J I !
:Vl- y
\
3 ..

7.- 1

J ! 7

` V 5

w 1, r??
' ?, ?
r
gr ,{,
f "?',
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name 6 - LP 7 d Nearest road SP "?LIs-
County SA4U Name of Evaluator f :5-T Date 7- :31-01
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
?on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series; *' _x4 n5 or
' 'predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat-
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
?wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation %
agriculture, urban/suburban 1 %
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1) AeeA irl_brt W.1
(2)
(3) 5pL"r?arus CcarAUk.J
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
?Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
- Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin =
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
f Water storage Y * 4 = a D
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 1 * 4 =
Pollutant removal 1A * 5
Wildlife habitat 3 * 2
Aquatic life value * 4 = J0
Recreation/Education -A- * 1 = t
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mite upstream
Total score
"7 1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 6 -q.2 7Z Date: 7-31-a l
Applicant/Owner: NC 00T County:
Investigator: ?S State:
1-L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: 11414t?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?p Transect ID: .7,4y
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: _ LJ2 f-
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
t4 , AM Fl.,
9-
,S`j i, Fo /;rte
2-+'
rim ?- Fkcjt- 1D.
/ /
?????
4•. tDV "rl&d N OdL 12.
5•73'U1aGu5 c°F?u5u5 N A-Cly 13.
6. 14.
7- 15.
8- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or y?

FAC (excluding FAC-) 5
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):

Depth of Surface Water: (in
) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
. -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ?? I r (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L - -----------
SOILS
Map Unit Name
' Drainage Class: rte's}
(Series and Phase): 2
r Field,Observations

Q
r Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
Taxonomy (Subgrou p): r

Profile Description: r

Depth
Matrix Color
i
} Mottle Colors

(Munseil Moist) Mottle Texture. Concretions;
Structure. etc.
Abundance/Coq%
finches Horizon st
IMunsett Mo /
10 N ! y ,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Lest
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Circle)
rWettand phytic Vegetation Present? a No (Circle)
Hydrology Present. No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
c Sols Present?
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _ & ` q ? 7 2 Date: 7-3/-c/
Applicant/Owner: N c- 00-t County: 5a-
Investigator:. <f51- State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YPs No Community ID: NI tfW
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes(9 Transect ID: 2
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yesg Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse v
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
t. ul r ul ru m 5 F•Cen. 9.
2- r1F / H ?<r j 10.
?y?
/'
4 , !S rQ d: Ca&S 12.
5. 13.
s- 14.
7. 15-
8. 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or 3

FAC (excluding FAC-) /t
Remarks:
Piet;ri14'
raaJs;de, 114rrlov5 M0 f'-p-!
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
-
?o No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

T -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 (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
?Q ? Crr6/?
SOILS
Map Unit Name CA Drainage Class: trojera ?2J y (.Jail C"w4C4
(Series and Phase): V , r /? / ?/ Feld .Observations
r ?S+ _ Confirm Mapped Type-- Yes <l?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?fi d ? C , s .?//
r
Profile Description:
Mottle Texture. Concretions,
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
.
Abundance/Con rost Structure. etc____
Depth
inches Horizon (Mtrnsell M6-tl (Munsell MoistL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidc Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
tiydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ' 9 (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes fV?
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

6 __ I
? m
i
"low
tide '
Ilk
+
L
+
(n
O
0
L
m
N
+ O
O O_
O
O
O
M
II O
_ O
m
O O
U ?
N
O
O
O O
v N
m - O
C C Q O O
O F-
O W
Y L 7 W o
U-3 (D m p }
tnQ LU 0
mL* o0 m m
P? m+ mz 0 +
N L O r L Q0
m c vZ L 0-0
M L O Th' } m (D L)
01 U t N 3 } Z 0
c- C? - Ec a
O p+ 7 mi m o 0 0e
Z Z m U O p S
- L (D
p
a U) O
Y
O In 3 <co > w
??E I I Wei
ov