20041777 Ver 1_Complete File_20041102

f
owar?9Qe
4 'r
December 7, 2004
Wilson County
DWQ Project No. 041777
TIP No. B-4327
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and NEUSE RIVER BUFFER RULES AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacing Bridge No. 52 over Turkey Creek on SR 1131 in Wilson County.
Impact Fill in Surface Riparian Buffer Impacts Wetland Wetland Impacts-
Locations Water (Ac) (Square Feet) Impacts- Mechanized
Fill (Ac) Clearing (Ac)
Site 1 0.01 11,153 (6,664 Zone 1 + 4,489 Zone 2) 0.35 0.17
(STA 23+80)
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received November 2, 2004. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and wetland fills described are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3403. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit 23
issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water
Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
?OvhCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit I vatmalll?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Y .?
4.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
5.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
10.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
11.) Pursuant to NCAC15A 2B.0233(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover,
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
12.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
13.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
14.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
15.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
16.) All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1.
17.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
18.) All protected riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored
to the preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
19.) No in-water work is permitted batween April 1 and June 15 of any year, without prior approval from the NC
Division of Water Quality and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, NCDOT shall conform
with the NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997) at
all times.
20.) If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence
the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
S' ly,
an W. Klime ,
JEH1njt
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Jim Trogdon, P.E., Division 4 Engineer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
Mr. Jamie Shern, Division 4 Environmental Officer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
c:\Correspondence\DWQ041777\120304wgc.doc
.2
,., sr^TF o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 28, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

rJ 011 If
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
?
Do
' / L ? NO V 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWA ER BRANCH
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 52 over
Turkey Creek on SR 1131, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1131(7), State Project
No. 8.2341901, T B-4327, Division 4. T
ease m enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced in the existing location with a 130-foot single span steel girder
bridge with a 28-foot width. The structure will provide two 11-foot travel lanes with three feet of
lateral clearance on each side. The new approach roadway will provide two 11-foot travel lanes
with six feet grass shoulders (nine feet where guardrail is required). A design speed of 60 mph
will be provided. While the bridge is under construction, traffic will utilize an off-site detour.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
There will be 0.52 acres of permanent jurisdictional wetland impacts associated with this project.
Permanent impacts include 0.35 acre of fill and 0.17 acre of mechanized clearing. There will be
0.01 acre of permanent surface water impacts.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 52 is a seven span bridge composed of a reinforced concrete deck with an asphalt-
wearing surface on steel I-beams. The existing structure is 118 feet long. Due to the structural
components of the bridge, there will likely be no temporary fill associated with the removal of
Bridge No. 52. All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the
U.S. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
As noted in the project's PCE document, NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction
moratorium from April 1 to June 15 for sunfish. This moratorium will include bridge demolition
activities that could result in minor amounts of bridge material entering the surface waters.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE- WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Water Resources
Turkey Creek is located in the sub-basin 030407 of Neuse River Basin which is located within the
United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03020203 of the Atlantic/Gulf Region. The
DWQ best usage classification (Index No. 27-86-3-(1)) is C NSW. Class C water resources are
defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Wastewater discharge and stormwater management requirements
apply to these waters. The supplemental NSW classification refers to nutrient sensitive waters
which require limitations on nutrient input.
Avoidance and Minimization
In order to avoid having piers in the water and work bridge impacts, a single-span, 130-foot
bridge was designed for the replacement. Roadway fill slopes were steepened from 4:1 to 3:1 to
minimize wetland impacts. The 3: 1 slopes will reduce wetland impacts but are not so steep that
major erosion and slope failure are likely to occur.
Mitigation
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water
Act compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in Exhibit 1 of the
subject MOA during the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the
federal Clean Water Act will be provided by the EEP. The NCDOT has avoided and minimized
impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible. The remaining, unavoidable
impacts to 0.52 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided
by the EEP. A copy of the EEP acceptance letter dated September 15, 2004 is provided with the
application.
Federally Protected Species
As of January 29, 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species for Wilson County. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) are listed as
endangered. Biological Conclusions for each of the three protected species is: No Effect.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (67 EB: 2020; January 15, 2002). The NCDOT requests that replacement
of Bridge No. 42 be authorized by Nationwide Permit 23.
Section 401 Pennit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review.
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules: Bridge No. 52 lies within the Neuse River Basin. Therefore, this
project is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules. There will be 6664 feet' of impacts in zone 1 and
4489 feet' of impacts in zone 2. NCDOT hereby requests a buffer certification for this project
from DWQ.
The project is currently scheduled to be let in April 2005. You may view a copy of this permit
application on the NCDOT website at: http://www.ncdot.org/planning_/pe/naturalunit/Permit.htmi.
The NCDOT appreciates your continued assistance with this project. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at [phone].
cc: W/attachment
W/o attachment
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P .E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P .E., Structure Design
Mr. Jim Trogdon, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, DEO Division 4
Mr. Jay Bennett, P .E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Ms. Karen Capps, P.E., PDEA

6;* LOA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
August 26, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RECEIVED
AUG 31 2004
ONSION OF MGMNAVS
FILE OF NATUKENVI WElff
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Bridge 52 over Turkey Creek, B-4327, Wilson County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you in a letter dated August 20, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3020203 of the Neuse River
Basin in the Northern Inner Coastal Plain Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.52 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided
in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Michael Bell, USACE - Washington
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4327
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/
One
rthCarohna
No
Naturallb,
I
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Bailey I
r
1 RQ hem yi r ?Lxn .-?
1105
. ? ? '110
1108
~d? ^p. 101 \' ?. `'J
1100

I
1733
eflin
Y? uny 131
111 ? iNaS?G°Jr '
1141
131 ' Conn r l
Ck t?
O ij )
Budkhohn-
Reservoir
MAP
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2341901 (B-4327)
TURKEY CREEK/BUCKHORN
RESERVIOR BRIDGE U52
ON SR1131
SHEET OF 8 07 / 07 / 04
NORTH CAROLINA '
To"
C:? \ rr
1 n
_ -Pleas Grove n
Q?l
0)' 75a lI?
226
Ga?? 2?. . 1131
126
?u l
/ Cem eer' ? ` ' ? i- ri r(
?Ao J `J
18 =
200 °
a
d J - _ !h
\ // II
275 tl
:?.;key! m n
n
c. ,S N Cem _ V: o
R 15
sT Co . C U
o*
00 = = 20 C
ah - f: 1 ? r
-e
L
75-
S
r i --
b o t?? YY
. .l ? . "? i!t?4 . x,. 1 `v _.. 7 '>:TT ?"" -s/...? ? y ?x ?•a" 'e rV 4` ? N ?;
i " r! r a??r?w -IN F v w 1 1/
..........
"??'t ,.r?,z;??y?f a •T7`?133y, c??' ? { J
IKENLY WEST)
5355 d SW
1 SCALE 1:24000
1. 2 0 1 MILE ( °.
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
STANCILS CHAPEL, N. C. '. N CD®T
it • NW/4 KENLY 15' QUADRANGLE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MN N3537.5-W7807.517.5
GN 1978 WILSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 82341901 (B-4327)
l07 MILS TURKEY CREEK®BUCKHORN
29 MILS
RESERVIOR BRIDGE 052
ON SR1131
UTM GRID AND 1978 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
SHEET °t OF 07 ®07 / 04

`o

N
Z

~? 0
>- a
~ (V
7
a=m °
=
Z
O N
<

U-Z NO Y

M
p0 U)
LL. ~

H V
LLI
>
W> S
w
O CL N co
U LO
°
Z
c
m
rn
v_
`
m

to
CO

'46

UZ [

I-- 1

? rn
zoo

rn a> y
tq ? c
W E
Q U
a

W
Q a tq ?
? C
3 F-
W

Q

N ?a?
v
?

? O o
? ?
m
m c 0
Q LL Z

(? 'G C p U ar-
=I-.s O O

a

f" o ?
l0 ?

C
Q
d U
? N l6
X
w/
1 ? W C
W
d O
0 5
z ? LL
a
H
W c

N
'O
O
N ?
LL j M
O

T W
3 O
d
_
fA M

`O
O `
coo
? t
? 2
LL. N

? O
fl

O
U _
L?U U U.
?-
004 15:31
l?c?si permit\B4327_pmt_pln&vicmap.dgr

0 0

0

n C

o : , o
•

o s a O

O m
m z
o O ? o
-i
AM c- m
N
I 3
n
r- S
Z
Z
rn

N N - N ? N ? N
1 8 cn + A "ti cn
, cl
N N 0
Ul N N co
0
IC5

I
I

I
I ?

I
I
I I I

? •
` I s
1 I , I •
I

I
o °
0

o °
d

o °

O
J oo

w
N
N ?
Z
O
O
O
h
x
° m
0

.a
z o

= o ?Qt

goz o
w
_ a a as

= o
F
m
_ = x

s=
I 00
= s s s s s F

U
114 <E
J
z(r- ¢w

Z

R, JI- C=.13

z
?a w J
z

g
lLa
?
MLLJ O U) Z (n
~
-3
OLL O
W O
ur O(n OV 0
G? '?
lei

I Way

i i
( ? o a
= z?

= I ==
=
HQ xWa
a
?
W
? = z
?
= I = o
?a

= ? v? C7
m E. z 0
auF
= I I W??
= w
z w
= ?w0 LWi
= I I E. o w
= I = A? )
I ? V

I ? Ewa
?a o
Ln
=

f
PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES
1
2
3
CITY OF WILSON
ADDRESSES
PO. BOX 10
WILSON NC.27894
DEBORAH BUNN BRADSHAW
LINDA M. FRA71ER
9109 SANDY HILL CH. RD.
BAILEY NC. 27807
7965 W. TARBORO RD.
ROCKY MT. NC. 27803
? e
NORTH CAROLINA
Bailey r
,1 ?? °?'"?'stem yi r Len -?
1105
'110
1108
1101 INA 1100

I?
Y v, 131
G o J?
1111 \ NaS, G °
O? r
1141
Conn r
131
33
in Buckhoin-
Reservoir
MAID
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2341"1 (B-4327)
TURKEY CREEK/ BUCKHORN
RESERVIOR BRIDGE U52
ON SR1131
SHEET I OF
07 / 07 / 04
NEUSIE RIVER BUFFER
if

m
J
Zi
r
t Y /.
la > <
\ [
\
z
m
J
St
C)
2
/Y ?x ,Y
y x/\>\n
> Yv <
< x `?
/>/ n
< X
X ` \X.
m
J
O
O
y0 r.
z
V
z
1--1
V
z ?
0
H
? z
zZ?
F? U E-4
z ?Tr
wgo0
(A U)
F- F-
U L)
.a C
0- LLI 0-0
LO
W w W w
J Z J Z
mO m0
Q N Q N
00: Ocr
J W J W
JLL JLL
Q M Q D
CO ?Nm
?Z ?Z
O'" 0-
Z z
LLI U.r
.,x \\
/x \\
\
/x \\
\
/x \
O
LO
H
W
W
LL-
0 Li.l
J
a
U
N
O
Lr)

Y
Z W
O w
a
- Y e > v
1
'
O
a. Q
m
Y
tZ
I
z
a
i
Z
Qx
U
u

coww
(X LL
o
O Z
O cddow (v1
LL
OO JF-?Z W
¢
w
?
3
O
_
a
O
O Z m
O
w
O
U d

z Z Q m

?
Co
a

Z'9

O
C

m
0

U.

Cl)

co

N
Z W
? W ?`? o
W W N
LL
U

m ?
Z
O
?
?
O
F
W
m N

I- N v

N v

I.I.

F-
U W
Q co
N
YI c
G ? p
O 0
V?
t... J
J N
Q W

U

? ?
m
0
Q 0
t ?p
A N

C J

IL ? Q
a
a?
d

m o
p x
O
U

OC ?

FO N
? LL
W W W
(L
?
t- D
ix

Z
W 1
01
O
1
-

-!-Gu,-2064 14:55 I - - I
..r..,dro.,l:LT`perm:t'.B4327-bufferpmt-pln.dgn 6.17
i
o
2 ?

rn
i
m lr /r

7
I
° rn r

O
? I
OZ

rn a a
3 z ? ?

Do
m °m
z
mmz? zm
F, F.
rR `1
o2 oq
IT1m 1?1m
ON ?N
1
c
qp? O
i
?dl. i I ? ? ?ti 1 oDv
?, I I r r r
I ? ??Tutbi
?_' ?I ? ? r r r r r r?

m r
n +
Iga?
?
ao n
LN N * +
°a

-v
r?3' \e7y CV,
?7'iI ", 5.919L Z
B? 3-1.96.1 S C
\ 664 S
x3aa? a3xani ?- ? ?,
-°o
I' t
N m
vm
n?
0
A

°x 3
mN x
Z m
o
O0
Zo
NN
N to
Q? 3
x j
O?
xz
N
u,
0 0°
0 0
1
ze.o•

!I
0
I mm
A
I a
I
4
rp
o
s

V N?Nr

Frio+ -M
?N
O
?m
Ic
r
m
m
m y,
C

r
N t5

O

m
X
D
m
a
(A 3E =
> r-4i m°
N m M D
+ m °o'-
ON VIA
A M T
_ > r
o?
rn W
?s
N
z
.f3 Nm m
n??A
3 * NON
0 N p I+i A
w 'o
0
H ? r
x?
N
N?
0
Z
0
8

ode .10.0 N
O r G
r
A 8
s?yr1
3•h •r0.0
Pm
?1 rlM OM- / »> > VC)
s?
JJ 111v
ql +++ z
{- >Q Q4
~ g ?N*1 rri !I o
Qj ? §
I + z
z
r1 n
m?
N : N
SS.S
?? ? 201 + ? m o ? 4
+3Yy01 O+/?/ u g
W
+ p33? ,3. a' r Y.
oo?
S
s .92•iC yo ? 41 •n
/ 4• s
.'?.f Nf
•
I l mw
41 t+
M1 i
Y ytil? f
L 3'.
N
j{a?.y0 I ?+ \ e
f4 y0 \.
!K
I i I I Y
* o
O
I I ' ?
??.. 99 ry NAD 83
` I+ °? .
I +: O 82 B'Ce ?a
1 ?
8 S
.0,
y ? O
?
ic U1•p14
I

I/ a •F y

1 •? 15
° Q
w

'?
/
V , ??m $
ff11??
7

g

s
¢ t2S
e
y
n
m
ZZ
f + w riy O

I? m
Vf ?C

'?
/ y r
d
? Ln
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B4327
State Project No. 8.2341901
Federal Project No. BRZ-1131(7)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 52 on SR 1131 over Turkey Creek in
Wilson County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot (45.7-m) long bridge
in the same location. The proposed roadway grade will be slightly higher than the
existing bridge in order to faciliate drainage. The cross section of the new bridge
will include two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 3.0-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach
work will consist of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for
approximately 510 feet (155.4 meters) to the west and approximately 640 feet
(195.1 meters) 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 Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
36.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is composed of a
timber substructure, with one bent requiring two side crutches for additional
support. Therefore, the bridge is structurally deficient. The replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
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)
i. Slide Stablization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
i
ngs.
separation to replace existing at grade railroad cross
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
2
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 825,000
Right of Way $ 27,000
Total $ 852,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 600 vpd
Year 2025 - 1000 vpd
TTST - 1 %
Dual - 2%
Detour Length:
5.6 miles (9.0 km)
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The existing roadway approaches will be widened to a 22-foot (6.6 meter) pavement width to
provide for two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Six-foot (1.8 meter) shoulders will be provided on
each side increased to 9.0-foot (2.7-meter) shoulders where guardrail is required.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 kph)
Functional Classification: Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division Construction Engineer concurs with replacing Bridge No. 52 in essentially the
same location and using an offsite detour to maintain traffic on existing roads. The EMS director
for Wilson Co. expressed concerns about delay of emergency vehicles. The construction time
will be held to eight (8) months.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 52 contains seven spans totaling 119 feet (36.3 m) in length. The bridge is composed
of a reinforced concrete deck with concrete rails and timber joists. The substructure is composed
of timber bents, end bents and piles, with a crutch composed of steel beams. There will be no
likely fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 52.
Alternatives Studied and Rejected
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1131.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age, deteriorated condition and timber
substructure.
An alternate (Alternate 2) to replace the bridge on new location to the north of the existing
bridge was studied. Alternate 2 would impact fewer wetlands than the perferred alternate,
however; the proposed approach work would impact approximately 2.0 acres of forested land.
The proposed alternate impacts only 0.85 acres of forested land. Additionally, due to the
requried bridge length, Alternate 2 has a total construction cost of $1.9 million as compared to
less than $900 thousand for the perferred alternate. Therefore, Alternate 2 was judged not
prudent or feasible.
Environmental Commitments
Please see attached Green Sheet for Project Commitments.
4
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-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6)
(7)
(g)
(9)
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
0
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
Will, the project require fill in waters of the United States ?
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
Does the project involve any known underground storage ?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
X
X
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

5
4 1
(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, ECONOAUC, 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
6
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
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?
(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?
F.
Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
X
X
ses in Part E
i regarding all unfavorable responses m rant r, snouia ne 1
supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.
2.
4.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. An
on-site meeting was held on January 14, 2003 with the appropriate agencies.
Upon further investigation, NCWRC determined that the Dwarf wedgemussel and
several other mussel species were salvaged from this site before inundation of
Buckhorn Reservoir. Therefore, Section 7 requirements have been satisfied.
The proposed project is expected to impact approximately 0.45 acres of wetlands.
The typical section of the proposed bridge and roadway approaches has been
minimized to the extent possible. Mitigation will be required for the impacts
associated with the project.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-4327
8.2341901
BRZ-1131(7)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 52 on SR 1131 over Turkey Creek in
Wilson County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot (45.7-m) long bridge
in the same location. The proposed roadway grade will be slightly higher than the
existing bridge in order to faciliate drainage. The cross section of the new bridge
will include two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 3.0-foot (1.0-foot) offsets. Approach
work will consist of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for
approximately 510 feet (155.4 meters) to the west and approximately 640 feet
(195.1 meters) 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:
163
Da e
44--
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
ate oject Pl g Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
ep /03 11_14? )d ?? - /06
Date Project Developmen ngineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date L%Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
Project Commitments
Replacement of Bridge No. 52 on SR. 1131 Over Turkey Creek
Wilson County
F. A. Project No. BRZ-1131(7)
State Project No. 8.2341901
T.I.P. No. B-4327
Division 4, Design Services
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road
closure, the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Gordon Deno with Wilson County
EMS at [phone] of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure. The total
road closure time will be held to eight (8) months.
Program Development Unit, Division 4
The replacement of Bridge No. 52 must be completed and SR 1131 open to traffic before
construction of T.I.P. No. B-3877 is allowed to begin. This bridge will likely serve as
part of the detour route for that project.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Roadway Design Unit,
Hydraulics Unit
Turkey Creek is in the Neuse River Basin and must adhere to all Riparian Buffer Rules
for this basin.
Division 4, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Turkey Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore; NCWRC recommends a
moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit
Hazardous Material Spill Basins will be required on this project.
Greensheet Page 1 of 1
Permit Application
PDEA
September 2004
No+c 52 112 8 no,.3 par?;gj jy
Inunclck6a by duckho?n
Qe-,ervo;r
0 0 proposed Oe?our f2co+r-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WILSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 52 ON SR 1131
OVER TURKEY CREEK
B-4327
Figure One
IA SU7E o
ti
?? awr.vd'i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
?* e
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director

TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook n
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 52 and SR 1131 over Turkey Creek, B-4327,
Wilson County, ER 02-8568
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 Mary 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 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 8
Telephone/Fax
(919) 7334763.733-8653
[phone] .715-4801
[phone] •7154801
Oil ///4/03
? AAit a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Karen B. Capps, PE ?0
Project Planning Engineer
DATE:
January 14, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 52 on SR 1131 over Turkey
Creek, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1131(7), State Project No. 3.2341901. TIP Project No.
B-4327
A Section 7 meeting for this project was held at the site on Januan- 13.2003. The
following people were in attendance.
Judy Raticliff NC WRC
John Alderman PDEA
Gary Jordan USFWS
Brian Hanks Structure Design
Kanak Purohit Structure Design
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Imad Younis Roadway Design
Wendi Johnson Division 4 Const. Engineer
Steve Mbrgan Hydraulics
William Whitfield Hydraulics
Karen Capps PDEA
Turkey Creek, at this location, is inundated with backwater from Buckhorn Reservoir.
Historically, the dwarfwedge mussel has been documented in the project vicinity.
However, the habitat has been altered at this site by the water impounded from Buckhorn
Reservoir and is considered marginal at best. NCDOT will conduct a mussel survey in the
spring for both the dwarfwedge mussel and the Tar River spinymussei. If any of these
federally-listed species are found, they will be relocated upstream to a suitable site agreed
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE. [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
upon by NCDOT, USFWS, and NCWRC. Due to the degradation of the habitat, the
standard NCDOT Best Management Practices for this site will be sufficient to satisfy
Section 7 requirements. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Subject: RE: B-4327 Section 7 Meeting
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:17:30 -0500
From: "Judith A. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Karen Capps PE" <[e-mail]>,
"John M. Alderman" <[e-mail]>.
"Gary Jordan" <Gary [e-mail]>, "Brian Hanks" <[e-mail]>,
"Kanak Purohit" <[e-mail]>,
"Gregory E. Brew PE" <[e-mail]>, "Imad Younis" <[e-mail]>,
"Wendi Oglesby Johnson, PE" <[e-mail]>,
"William \(Bill\) A. Whitfield" <[e-mail]>,
"S. R. Morgan" <[e-mail]>
Karen,
I've investigated the dwarf wedgemussel issue at the SR 1131 crossing of
Turkey Creek in Wilson County. Dwarf wedgemussels and several other species
were salvaged from this site before inundation as part of the "reasonable
and prudent measures" for the Buckhorn Reservoir project. ?_ mussel survev
will not be necessary for this project.
Thanks,
JUDY
Judith A. Ratcliffe
Nor-.h Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program
11_17 Woodbrook Wav
Garner, NC 27529 r
[phone]
'919) 348-0538 ce__
[e-mail]
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Capps PE [mailto:[e-mail]-z
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:32 PM
To: Judy Ratcliffe; John M. Alderman; Gary Jordan; Brian Hanks; Karak
Purohit; Gregory E. Brew PE; Imad Younis; Wendi Oglesby Johnson, PE;
William (Bil'_) A. Whitfield; S. R. Moraan
Subject: B-4327 Section 7 Meeting
Attached are minutes from the section 7 meeting for B-4327.
Please review and comment. Thank vou.
Karen
1/30/03 9:43 AM
I t s
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 52
SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) over Turkey Creek
Wilson County, North Carolina
(B-4327)
(State Project No. 8.2341901)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1131 [7])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by: .
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
November 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Methods ........................................................................................................................1
1.4 Project Area .................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Physiography and Soils .................................................................................................5
2.0 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................6
2.1 Waters Impacted ...........................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ........................................................................................6
2.1.2 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality ...........................:.........................6
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to water Resources .......................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................................8
3.2 Terrestrial Plant Community Areas ...............................................................................9
3.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Terrestrial ..........................................................................................................11
3.3.2 Aquatic ...............................................................................................................11
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ...................................................................................12
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS .............................................................................................................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ........................................................................................12
4.1.1 Permits ...................................................................................................:..........13
4.1.2 Mitigation ...........................................................................................................15
4.2 Protected Species .......................................................................................................15
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..............................................................................15
4.2.2 State Protected Species ....................................................................................19
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 20
. 1.4 i i
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Site Location ..............................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Project Area ................................................................................................................3
Figure 3. Plant Communities within Project Area .....................................................................10
Figure 4. Jurisdictional Areas and Buffers ................................................................................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities ... ................................................................................................9
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas ....................................................................................................13
Table 3. Federally Protected Species .....................................................................................15
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern ......................................................................................18
I

Replacement of Bridge No. 52
SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) over Turkey Creek
Wilson County, North Carolina
(B-4327)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 52 on SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) over Turkey Creek and associated floodplain (Figure
1). Bridge No. 52 spans Turkey Creek and the adjacent floodplain for a distance of
approximately 125 feet (38.1 meters). The existing roadway is 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide with a
right-of-way width of 60 feet (18.3 meters) (Figure 2).
Bridge No. 52 is 125 feet (38.1 meters) long and is 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide. The
superstructure consists of wooden stringers, wooden decking, concrete rails, and an asphalt
surface. The substructure consists of timber piles, wooden piles and concrete end bents.
[Alternatives]
[Bridge Demolition Paragraph #1 ]
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the immediate
vicinity of project area. Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of
biological features within the project area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional
areas and subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble XRS Differential
Global Positioning System technology), 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their areas
within the study cooridor, and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Stancil's Chapel, NC
7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory
mapping (NWI) (Stancil's Chapel, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1983), and recent
aerial photography and design plans (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
1
" 4. %
Replacement of Bridge No. 52
SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) over Turkey Creek
Wilson County, North Carolina
(B-4327)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 52 on SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) over Turkey Creek and associated floodplain (Figure
1). Bridge No. 52 spans Turkey Creek and the adjacent floodplain for a distance of
approximately 125 feet (38.1 meters). The existing roadway is 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide with a
right-of-way width of 60 feet (18.3 meters) (Figure 2).
Bridge No. 52 is 125 feet (38.1 meters) long and is 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide. The
superstructure consists of wooden stringers, wooden decking, concrete rails, and an asphalt
surface. The substructure consists of timber piles, wooden piles and concrete end bents.
[Alternatives]
[Bridge Demolition Paragraph #1]
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the immediate
vicinity of project area. Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of
biological features within the project area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional
areas and subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble XRS Differential
Global Positioning System technology), 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their areas
within the study cooridor, and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Stancil's Chapel, NC
7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory
mapping (NWI) (Stancil's Chapel, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1983), and recent
aerial photography and design plans (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
1

?e- Project Anew - - ? ? `
.. ' ? .? 1.11 MI' . t n
cli
Mor
s? ?m 1
L? A!? ME •• ? y
belt,' 1-
tb _ i 71?- S rs .
-, EcoScience
Corporation
? o.o?a+ k nosy
LOCATION MAP
Replacement of Bridge No. 52
Wilson and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Dm ES FIGURE
c1db%
ss
,?UG2
ft*M 0
awsos
vl
T
C'{
C),
M
a
Co A _ pfd
C5

1 z =C M,
0
((? ?°g P? t!e i@9q
F?
pY 6
A

?

>
?A{ryyL
Y

?
l
?f? GO p
g p
M A
'
9 0 C) ? K3 i x
;

The project area was visited on August 10, 2001. The project area was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the project area has been
delineated by the NCDOT (Figure 2). Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1)
potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Turkey
Creek.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation biologists
Joseph R. Pursley and Kendrick Weeks. Mr. Pursley is a Project scientist with 3 years of
experience in the environmental field. He has received a bachelor's degree in natural resource
sciences (ecosystem assessment) from North Carolina State University. He has conducted
fieldwork involving forest productivity, avian population monitoring, avian nesting behavior, and
plant community ecology. His professional expertise includes avian neo-tropical migrant
identification, plant community mapping, protected species surveys, stream assessment, and
Section 404 jurisdictional area delineations.
Mr. Weeks is a project scientist with 2 years of experience in the environmental field. Mr.
Weeks earned a bachelor's degree in biology from Appalachian State University and a master's
degree in zoology from North Carolina State University. His graduate research focused on
breeding productivity of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds in the southern Appalachians.
Professional expertise includes plant and wildlife identification, protected species surveys,
environmental document preparation, and stream and wetland delineations.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect. field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature
(Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
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). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions
were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al.
1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et a/. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ
1999a, DWQ 1999b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Wilson
and Nash County (April 12, 2001 FWS list) was reviewed prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally or state listed
species were consulted before commencing field investigations.
4

1.4 F roject Area
The project area is located at the crossing of SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road) and Turkey
Creek, approximately 0.9 mile (1.4 kilometer) west of Connor, NC (Figure 1). The project area
boundary (Figure 2) has been delineated by the NCDOT. The project area is generally linear
and extends approximately 1150 feet (350.5 meters) along SR 1131 (New Sandy Hill Road),
centered on Turkey Creek bridge, and is widest in the vicinity of the bridge, where the width is
approximately 225 feet (68.5 meters). Included within the project area is Turkey Creek, the
associated floodplain, and adjacent uplands. This section of Turkey Creek is characterized as a
well-defined, upper Coastal Plain river with low to moderate flow velocity.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
The project area is located within the fall line zone between the upper Coastal Plain and the
lower Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina. The fall line zone runs along a
northeast and southwest axis and marks the dividing line between the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain where slopes change from moderate to nearly level. This area is located within the Middle
Coastal Plain System soil region (Daniels et al. 1999). The region is characterized by smooth,
gently undulating uplands, bisected by steep valley slopes along major streams and rivers.
When sea level was at its highest, ancient oceans overlaid the relict Piedmont soils with Coastal
Plain marine sediments. Streams within the fall line zone maintain moderate velocities and
typically cut steep valley slopes through the highly erodable marine sediments and expose the
relict Piedmont soils. Sediments along major streams may combine a variety of Coastal Plain
and Piedmont sediments. The project area is located within a relatively level, floodplain valley
surrounded by moderately sloped valley walls. Elevations in the project area range from a high
of approximately 160 feet (48.7 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).along the
west and east floodplain slopes of Turkey Creek to a low of approximately 150 feet (45.7
meters) NGVD within the stream channel.
Based on soil mapping for Wilson County (SCS 1983), the project area is underlain by three soil
series: Altavista sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults), Wedowee sandy loam (Typic Hapludults), and
Wehadkee loam (Typic Fluvaquents). The majority of the project area is composed of the
Turkey Creek floodplain and mapped as the Wehadkee loam. A small inclusion of Altavista
sandy loam occurs southwest of the bridge. The eastern upland soil bordering the floodplain is
primarily Wedowee sandy loam.
Altavista sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil on river and stream terraces.
Permeability is moderate and the water capacity is medium. The subsoil extends to a depth of
52 inches (132 centimeters). The underlying bedrock is typically encountered at 62 inches
(157.4 centimeters).
5
Wedowee sandy loam is a well drained soil on side slopes of Piedmont and upper Coastal Plain
uplands. The permeability is moderate and water availability is high. Wedowee soils are
strongly associated with mixed hardwood forests.
Wehadkee loam soil series is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on low terraces and
floodplains. Wehadkee loam typically has inclusions of Chewacla loam which occur near the
stream edge. The organic matter content of the surface layer is medium, and permeability is
moderate. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface during wet periods. These
soils are subject to frequent flooding. Wehadkee loam is listed as a hydric soil for Wilson County
(NRCS 1997).
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Waters Impacted
The project area is located within sub-basin 030407 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 1999a).
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020203 of the Atlantic/Gulf Region. The structure
targeted for replacement spans Turkey Creek and the Turkey Creek floodplain. This section of
Turkey Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-86-3-(1) by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ 1999b).
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Turkey Creek is a high order, perennial stream with an undetermined streambed substrate. At
Bridge No. 52, Turkey Creek is approximately 87.5 feet (26.6 meters) wide, with banks
approximately 0 to 1 foot (0 to 0.3 meter) high and gradually sloping. The project area north
and south of the bridge overlies the active floodplain of Turkey Creek, which is characterized as
a fresh water marsh and Piedmont alluvial forest that is frequently flooded.
During the field visit, Turkey Creek was a moderately undefined stream due to backwater from
Buckhom Reservoir. During field investigations of Turkey Creek project area, water clarity was
moderate to low and flow velocity was slow. The depth and creek bed substrate were undefined
due to the poor clarity and perceived depth of the creek.
2.1.2. Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C NSW has been assigned to this reach of Turkey Creek. Class C waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body
contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The supplemental classification NSW is
6
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to
excessive jrowth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management
strategies ` _•; point and non-point source pollution control require no increase in nutrients over
backgrouna levels. No designated High Qualit Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometer) of the project area (DWQ 1999). No watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometer) of the project area.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed
project area is summarized in the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality plan (DWQ 1999a).
Based on DWQ data, Turkey Creek is currently designated as Partially Supporting its current
use rating. Upstream of Bridge No. 52, at the Turkey Creek crossing of SR 1101, a
bioclassification of Fair has been assigned, and a downstream bioclassification of Good-Fair
has been assigned at SR 1128 based on benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring in 1997.
Sub-basin 030407 of the Neuse River Basin supports 28 permitted, point source discharges.
Total discharge is 21.08 million gallons per day (MGD) (79.8 million liters per day [MLD]).
Discharges include four major and 24 minor. The four major dischargers account for 19.35
MGD (73.24 MLD), and the 24 minor dischargers account for 1.73 MGD (6.54 MLD). Major
non-point sources of pollution for Turkey Creek include runoff from cropping and pasturage.
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source
discharges and often result in fecal coliform (DWQ 1999a).
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management
practices (BMP'S). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures
include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Turkey Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
the entire life of the project. Due to the composition of the Turkey Creekstream bed, sediment
7

curtains should be utilized to minimize potential water quality degradation as a result of bridge
replacement.
[Bridge Demolition Paragraph #2]
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: fresh water marsh, mesic
mixed hardwood forest, disturbed/maintained land, and Piedmont alluvial forest (Figure 3).
Plant community designations are based on a classification system utilized by the NHP
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). These communities are described below.
Fresh Water Marsh - The largest plant community within the project area is a freshwater
marsh which spans the Turkey Creek floodplain on both the upstream and downstream sides of
the bridge. The structure of the marsh community is controlled by the fluctuating water level of
Turkey Creek and the downstream Buckhom Reservoir. The freshwater marsh contains a wide
variety of woody and herbaceous plants. The scattered trees/shrubs were silky dogwood
(Comus amomum), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), Virginia willow (/tea virginica),
and buttonbush (Cepha/anthus occidentalis). Grasses, sedges, and rushes were plentiful and
were represented by beaked rush (Rhynchospora comiculata), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus),
leathery rush (Juncus coriaceous), soft rush (J. effusus), taper-tip rush (J. acuminatus), and hop
sedge (Carex lupulina). The herbaceous layer is diverse and contained arrow-leaf tearthumb
(Polygonum sagittatum), swamp smartweed (P. hydropiperoides), Asiatic dayflower (Murdannia
keisak), narrow-leaf sundrops (Oenothera fruticosa), bushy seedbox (Ludwigia altemifolia), river
seedbox (L. leptocarpa), primrose willow (L. decurrens), creeping seedbox (L. repens), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), swamp rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), broad-leaf cattail
(Typha /atifolia), Virginia meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica), bladderwort (Utricularia spp.),
lizard's tail (Saururus cemuus), common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), green arum (Peltandra
virginica), and duckweeds (Lemna spp.).
Mesic-mixed Hardwood Forest - A mature mesic-mixed hardwood forest and an early
successional mesic-mixed hardwood forest occur on upland slopes adjacent to the Turkey
Creek floodplain on both the north and south side of New Sandy Hill Road to the east of Bridge
No. 52. The mesic-mixed hardwood forest consists of a well-developed canopy with a
moderately dense understory with a thin assemblage of grasses and herbs. Canopy species
identified within this community are river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tuliplfera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), and
loblolly ' pine (Pinus taeda). The sub-canopy included flowering dogwood (Comus florida),
southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Shrub, vine, and herb species included sea myrtle (Baccharis haemifolia),
8

elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), blackberry (Rubus argutus), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and false
nettle. The early successional mesic mixed hardwood forest is located north of New Sandy Hill
Road and was comprised of similar species, but the structure was less well defined due to
recent disturbance.
Disturbed/Maintained Land - Disturbed/maintained land occurs only along the shoulders of SR
1131 (New Sandy Hill Road). Roadside right-of-way areas are approximately 10 feet (3.0
meters) wide. This community is a single-layered system of natural and planted grasses, herbs,
and vines. The community is comprised of blackberry, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle,
poison ivy, Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), common morning glory (/pomoea coccinea),
aster (Eupatorium sp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), and fescue.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest - A Piedmont alluvial forest and an early successional Piedmont
alluvial forest occur at the western fringe of the Turkey creek floodplain. The early successional
Piedmont alluvial forest occupies a relatively small area and is isolated within the fresh water
marsh community. The mature Piedmont alluvial forest occurs north and south of New Sandy
Hill Road at the western edge of the project area. The canopy is well developed and very thick.
The sub-canopy is very thin and contains mainly trailing vines. The shrub and herbaceous layer
are poorly defined due to the thick canopy layer. The primary canopy trees are sweetgum,
green ash, river birch, red maple and loblolly pine. The shrub and vine layer were represented
by deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier, poison ivy,
and blackberry.
3.2 Terrestrial Plant Community Areas
Plant communities within the project area were delineated to determine approximate area and
location of each plant community (Figure 3). A summary of plant community areas is presented
in Table 1.
Table 1. Project area plant communities. Areas are given in acres (hectares).
Plant Community Area
Fresh water marsh 1.39 (0.56)
Mesic mixed Hardwood Forest 0.95 (0.38)
Disturbed/ Maintained Land 0.47 (0.19)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.40 (0.16)
Total 3.21 (1.29)
9
I: , i

O
N
0
m
z o
0
m
m
m
N
O
O
M
kR ?z
x R
I`NKNKN N
(ixKMKMKx x
I;KrKxxxKxKr Z MN`
x x x% w w O N N
x X M X M r r r x M x
X X X R % % x M x w
IrXxxxr x xr xKrKKKKKwK
M X r ? X X X M%
IXX . ¦K r •Kx„•KK%K%K„?
IxxKx ¦% ¦ x w x x K
x x w KxK¦KwK%K%Kx`
N N x w x x x
x x % ? x x X x x xK?
?KXr„ x O %KwKMKwK%xRxfa
N w w r M K x x x
x M
xMMRNxxxx M wN
f`M x x x
x x x N x w w N M N%% M
% x X X% M X M M X% X X r M`
i K X N%%% N K R
4X xxxxMw%MK%XrMr X% % K x x x M> X ,
R R RN X x x w R
r x¦ x M¦% X x x x x x M
k K% X x% r M x M M X K X M X"
w M r M X% X x
N M¦ R K M M M XxYxM%„xxxRxM
IM x x x X X X X M % x K x x x
% x K w r x K x x x x w M
IM R% x x¦ x x x X X X M \
r Y x w% r Y x x N K X w ` `
R R r w R N M X x M 17V?
%% M x¦ M% x% x
?.- x x v r rwrrKxXxx ?V
' M M x x r x
1 Kx 1
I 1
3 ;3 J X x
V
11 J xxxxxrxxxl
1 N a R w R
% % x x M
R K K w R X M
` x w X r x x x,
K K R M r r% M M M
x X% r x x r x x x N
x k% X r¦ X N w R¦ N w
M r w M R w R R M w M M% x
N%% K r r x X xXxKxKMKMKMKx?
r x x x x x x x x
w R w¦ r x x x R R¦ r X¦ R
(M X%% r M
M%% x X wM xwXx XXKX M r r M M r r w
M
x% x x X r r X r M M%% M
%%% x w x x x x r w r M M x
yr%%%%Mr% r xrMwr% w xrM¦MxXM¦%¦rl
r r x x M M M w x r¦ Y M N
?% r R w r r¦ r r
a x r% r r r K
¦ a w w ¦ ¦ ¦ r
R w R r%% r
X x x x X X K x
VKNKXXNKNKXKXXX
`11KKKKK¦KNKMKMKR
`rxrxr ¦ %
W

v.?
Vr
r

zo?
? U,
m
?O
tmt
m or-

o

mcr c
n
o?

;a

-0
°c5.<<
z c?
Zv-, 38
0 ^'

m
m
4?C pX m
?Z
OXC
f
?n
o

m
Z
?
0
?
om
°.
?
m
?
° An c?
gy
-Di
?
r.
0
m
N 0
N 0
m
30 N c
v
z
<
z m ?
z m
z ;

o 4
i m
y

M
wo
Y/
m
T
;u
0
L
0
-4
m
D
n a n o
T m m M
C- 0 OR m 3? '4 o ? YAP --o Z .? o
z
-0 Oc vi
c ?.
m o
g ?_I ?
oc n WpaVm O
p N m Z -c m D pa
0 00 °o D-
0 - .r 7C

O
N
0
z o
0
m 1
I \
\
N I \
O i \
1 \
i \
I \
I \
I Z \\
?V \
Z
Z
r
O \
O
I ? \
1 1
yl 311 8
m
I a,
I
1
a,, 1
1
\ 1
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\
\ I
\
\ L4 1
I \ 1 ?
\ o
\ 1 m
\ 1
r
\ D
°- 4 o X an \
v \ J
n g \.
Z
m
U)
m n o v z
n o ' ? o e'
CO)
Z <? r O G) C7 N o p
M 00 g 1 ?o 0 1 OaN
N yZ z-4 m --gCv
c o 0o D m ,? N CD
co r

3.3 Wildlife
3.3.1 Terrestrial
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit but physical signs of two mammal
species, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed
within the project area. Other mammal species expected to occur within the project area are
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), river otter (Lutra
canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), cotton mouse
(Peromyscus gossypinus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor are indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), yellow-
billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), osprey (Pandion
haliaetus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), rock dove (Columba livia), white eyed vireo (Vireo
griseus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).
Two terrestrial amphibian species were observed during the site visit, green frog (Rana
clamitans) and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans). No terrestrial reptiles were observed
during the site visit. Terrestrial reptiles which may occur within the project area include eastern
box turtle (Ten-apene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouser),
American toad (Bufo americans), southern toad (Bufo ten-estris), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), Carolina mudpuppy (Necturus lewisr), and slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus).
3.3.2 Aquatic
Limited surveys within the project area resulted in no observations of aquatic reptiles. Aquatic
or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which are expected to occur within the project area
include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), mud turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum), river cooter
(Pseudemys concinna), and southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus).
No sampling was undertaken in Turkey Creek to determine fishery potential. Fish species that
may be present in Turkey Creek include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), margined
madtom (Noturus insignis), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), tessellated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis). Potential game fish that may be present
within the project area include yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides).
11

3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since potential improvements will be restricted
to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have short-
term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through the use of silt curtains and the implementation of stringent erosion
control measures. Migratory fish are not expected to be an issue for this bridge replacement
due to the presence of Buckhorn Reservoir just downstream of the project area.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Turkey Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Turkey Creek exhibits characteristics of a
palustrine-forested broad-leaved deciduous-temporarily flooded (PF01A), Palustrine-forested
broad-leaved deciduous-seasonally flooded (PFO1 C), Palustrine-forested broad-leaved
deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen temporarily flooded (PF01 /4A) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Field investigations indicate that, within the project area, Turkey Creek is a well-defined, open
water, riverine system.
Wetlands adjacent to Turkey Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987 see attached Routine Wetland Determination data forms). NWI mapping indicates
that there are wetlands adjacent to Turkey Creek within the project area and jurisdictional
wetlands were found during the site visit. Wetland vegetation species growing in this area are
silky dogwood, swamp smartweed, wool grass, and bladderwort. These species are growing in
soils that exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic of hydric conditions. Evidence of
wetland hydrology includes saturated and innundated soil conditions, a wetland drainage
pattern, and oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches (30.5 centimeters) of the soil.
Jurisdictional impacts should be avoided or minimized by any considered alternatives. Bridge
replacement impacts will likely be limited to existing fill areas of Turkey Creek bridge
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15 A NCAC 2B .0233)
provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin
12
Y .
and affect their nutrient removal functions. Changes in land use within the buffer area are
considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes within the riparian are defined as being
Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or Prohibited. The Exempt designation
refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable designation refers to uses that may
proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written
authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project development. The Allowable with
Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given there are no practical alternatives
and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The Prohibited designation refers to
uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the riparian buffer rule include the
footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing. Stream linear distance was determined
as the length of the main channel. Riparian buffer linear distance was determined as the stream
linear distance minus existing use exemptions (e.g. road). Riparian buffer area was calculated
by multiplying riparian buffer linear distance by 100 feet (Table 2). Most of the land north and
south of Bridge No. 52 will be affected by buffer rules (Figure 4).
[Bridge demolition paragraph #3]
As this reach of Turkey Creek has no potential as a travel corridor for migratory fish, this project
can be classed as Case 3, where in-water work will have no moratorium. No special
restrictions apply to surface waters beyond those outlined in the BMPs.
Table 2: Linear distance, area of surface waterstwetlands, and riparian buffer within the project
area. Linear distance is expressed in feet (meters). and area is expressed in acres (hectares).
Jurisdictional Type Linear Distance Area
Surface Water
Wetlands
245 (74.6)
0
0.49 (0.2)
1.4 (0.56)
Riparian Buffer 222 (67.6) 0.5 (0.2)
4.1.1 Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23
(61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the
U.S. expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP No. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use
of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice,
impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify
under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031. Notification to the Wilmington
COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. The COE may exert discretionary
authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have not been
13
f fl
li
authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have not been
adequately addressed, or if mitigation is inadequate (assuming mitigation may be required).
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.3-meters) wide riparian buffers directly
adjacent to surface waters of the Neuse River Basin. Neuse Buffer Certification mayl be
needed in addition to a COE permit and DWQ Water Quality Certification.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Mitigation for Section 404 area impacts may be required, depending on the bridge replacement
cut-and-fill limits. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native riparian species and removal of temporary fill material
upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.8 meters) of stream
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
The requirement for riparian buffer mitigation will depend on the amount of potential impacts
resulting from proposed bridge replacement and the availability of practical alternatives. A final
determination regarding practical alternatives rests with DWQ.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), 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 term "Endangered Species is defined as "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected species listed for Wilson and adjacent Nash County (April 12,
2001 FWS list) is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Wilson and Nash County (April 12, 2001 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status County
Dwarf Wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Wilson/Nash
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Nash
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Wilson
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Wilson/Nash
* E= Endangered, T= Threatened, W= Wilson County, N= Nash County.
15
E
? - r
Dwarf Wedge Mussel The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging 1.0 to 1.5 inches
long. The shells are olive-green to dark brown in color and are subrhomboidally shaped. The
shells of females are swollen posteriorly, while the shells of males are generally flattened
(TSCFTM 1990). The preferred habitats are streams with moderate flow velocities and bottoms
varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud, especially just downstream of debris and
on banks of accreting sediment. This species was previously known only from a few, disjunct
populations in the Neuse River basin (Johnston Co.) and Tar River basin (Wilson Co.).
Statewide surveys conducted since 1992 have expanded this species' range in North Carolina.
This species is now known from Neuse Basin in Orange, Wake, Johnston, and Nash Counties;
and from Tar River Basin in Wilson, Vance, Warren, Franklin, Halifax, and Nash Counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The dwarf wedge mussel typically occurs in rivers with
moderate flow rates and a gravel to sand substrate. The Turkey Creek shoreline and
river bottom within the project area provide marginal habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
The low creek flow and limited clarity would indicate a thick mud and silt bottom which
provides poor habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. NHP records have documentation of
this species approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) downstream of the project area, but
no mussels or relict shells were observed during the field visit. Based on professional
judgement and a cursory investigation of potential habitat, a field survey is needed to
determine presence or absence of dwarf wedge mussel within the project area.
UNRESOLVED
Tar River spinymussel-The Tar River spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that
grows to approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 centimeters) in length. The external shell of the adult is
smooth, orange-brown to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines (to
0.2 inches [5.1 millimeters] long). The shell is thicker on the anterior end and thinner on the
posterior end. Preferred habitat of the spiny mussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-
oxygenated, circumneutral water over a silt-free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate.
The mussel's range is believed to be limited to a 1.0-mile (1.6-kilometer) section of the Tar River
in Edgecombe County and Swift Creek in Vance and Edgecombe Counties (TSCFTM 1990).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Marginal habitat for the Tar River spinymussel is found in
the vicinity of the project area due to apparent slow flows and a silty substrate. NHP has
no documentation of the Tar River spinymussel within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the
project area. No evidence of mussels was observed during the field investigation.
Based on professional judgement and a cursory field investigation, a field survey is
needed to determine presence or absence of dwarf wedge mussel within the project
area. UNRESOLVED
Michaux's sumac- Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub,
usually less than 2 feet (0.6 meter) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9 to 13
hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets bome on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged
(Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June on separate
16
c
plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red
fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas
where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along
roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer
clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhiils, it prefers
loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in
the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that Michaux's sumac has not been
documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. The project
area does contain suitable habitat for this species. Based on analysis of NHP records
and habitat types within the project area, an intensive surrey of the project area was
undertaken and did not reveal the presence of Michaux's sumac. Therefore, on the
basis of NHP records and best professional judgement, the proposed project will have
NO EFFECT
Red-cockaded Woodpecker This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [18 to 22 centimeters]
long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches, and a 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 (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottil), and
pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the
heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-heart
disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur. in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS
1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a
shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been- maintained by frequent natural
fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick
understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
The BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: A few, young loblolly pine trees exist within the
project area and adjacent areas. These trees are not old enough to provide suitable
nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers The clustered arrangement
of pine trees preferred by the birds for nesting colonies is not provided in the vicinity of
the project area. In addition, the use of these scattered pines for foraging sites would
depend on the birds' crossing large, inhospitable tracts of roadways, and extensive open
fresh water marsh. The NHP documents no occurrences of red-cockaded woodpeckers
within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the.project area, and none were observed during field
surveys. Based on professional jddgment and available information, this project will
have. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The April 12, 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that
17
I
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species
listed for Wilson and adjacent Nash County are presented in Table 4. NHP files have no
documentation of FSC species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area. The nearest
FSC species is the pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus) located 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers)
downstream to the east-southeast.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concem listed for Wilson and adjacent Nash County (FWS list,
April 12, 2001).
? - r

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status* County
listing
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslow# NO SR Wilson
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus YES SR Wilson/Nash
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa NO T Nash
Yellow lance Ellipbo lanceolata NO T Nash
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis NO E Nash
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason NO T Wilson/Nash
Sandhills bog lily LNum Mdollae NO T Nash
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum YES E Nash
Carolina asphodel Torre/dia glabra YES C Wilson
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana YES SR Nash
• E = Endangered; T = threatened; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; P = Species has been formally
proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; W1 = NC Plant Watch List: rage because of
severe decline; W3 = NC Watch List: poorly known in North Carolina (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Ha111999).
4.2.2 State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered, Threatened,
Special Concern (SC), Candidate, Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (Amoroso 1999,
LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.
106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that the notched rainbow mussel (Villosa consricta),
triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), and Georgia holly (ilex longipies) have been
documented within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area. In Wilson County, notched
rainbow mussel and the triangle floater have been documented 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers)
downstream and west-southwest of the project area. The Georgia holly has been documented
18
z ? .
0.7 mile (1.1 kilometer) west of Bridge No. 52. The notched rainbow mussel is state listed as
SR, the triangle floater as Threatened, and Georgia holly as SC rating. No other NHP species
are documented within two miles of the project area.
NHP also documents Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA), sites selected on the basis of
the occurrence of rare plant and animal species, rare or high quality natural communities and
special animal habitats. NHP documents a SNHA, Turkey Creek Aquatic Habitat, at the project
area with a signifiigance classification of (A) (NHP 1999). Class A signifigance denotes a
Nationally signifigant natural area that contains examples of natural communities, rare plant or
animal populations, or geologic features that are among the highest quality in the nation. No
other NHP SNHA occur within two miles of the project area.
19
IE
r r
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.
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.
Daniels, R.B., S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University Soil Science Department. Raleigh, North Carolina. 118
PP-
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999b. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. 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.
20
w
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pp-
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Wilson County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1983. Soil survey of Wilson County, North Carolina, USDA
National Cooperative Soil Survey.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on
the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan
Fauna. Pp. 50-52.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting
habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and
Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, FL.
21

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.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
22

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: A,; Jo e /Ue. _91 SA ll.3i Date: A_/ 0 - 0/
Applicant/Owner: Air /) 0 7' County: "Inc 0
Investigator. s U ,',.te State: /Ve r 6
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? e No Community 10:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 6) Transact ID: _ r of 3 _
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes e Plot 0:
(If needed. explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Rant Species
1. ?1,..?.?c e..rnw2arr) f,Straum Ind ;
s`.?,e , F? >?'+ Domnant Plant S/e/ee;es r , Stratum Indicator
S. ?PJ'IDTb0/4' -hrd?ti q?? ArRC
z U e rAfm A 1:01~ ?? OBE 10.

4. •- .:,
5. A 13.
09L 14.
7. CAL IL
16. _
Percent of Donddnnt Spades that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excknfing FAC-) l?d
Remarks: Vce rLoA &.045
;X W /wrteJC
s e. if ?: q
Tgo1 /-S P1
,
HYDROLOGY
F_Remwd"ed Dan Mesdobe in Remarks):
. Lake or ride Gauge
Photographs
ed D an Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. l - fin.)
D', pth to Free Water in Pit: 2 ??1 / 0n.)
pth to Saturated Sort: r-om le-c/
Renwrks:
Wed wd Hydrology krdieators:
Primary k+ s.
Teadndated
Satwated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
_Sedinment Deposits
,X Drainage Patters in Wetiands
Secondary indicators 12 or more required):
JX Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_Water-Stained Leaves
XLocal Soil Survey Oats
.X FAC.Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): k?- o f i?r A01 Drainage Cass: i

Taxononry (Subgroup): f e i Fliue Field Observation
s?. o rt 1 Confirm Mapped Tape: No
Profile Deseriatiar.
Depth Matrix Coiar
Mottle Calaa Match Taxture. Concretions.
ji
n
Few
l Ho_zon fMunsell Moist! IMunaell Mond Abumdanee1Canerest_ Sttin". M.
n
-
,
A
L- A. 6 J?c 2S T .l A' AVIM.
All el*y
Hydrie Sell buflextom
"land
- mudc Epipedon Caaemdomw
jW0 OWMe Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidc Odor Oviedo streaking in sandy sobs
Aquic Moisture Region ? Listed on Load Hydrie Sods Lisa
?C Ra*xirm Carditlom _ Limed on Natiard Hydrie Sods List
Gloved or Low-Chrome Colors Otb* MxpWo in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyde Vageadan Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Presert?
® No (Circe)
Y No
Yes No
(Cade)
b this Sampling Putt Within a Wetland? Yes no
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8193 -
w
r
?f
VEGETATION
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wedands Delineation Manual)
Demirom Pleat Seeeies Sstgttim
1. Dominant Plant Spec!" Stra"m Indicator
IL
I )10:A to
3. JA t AAC 11.
4. FA C t2.
L 12
6. 1*.PnAe Np?&j 14.
7. tti. --
L 1E. -- --
Percent of +t specie: that ere act,. FACW w
FAC (exdudmg FAC-1
4
Roman=
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data Wascnbo in Retnarics): Wedend Hydrology husestom I
Stream. Lake or ride Gouge Primary Indicatom
h
Aedai Photographs aatdated
=Samrasd in Upper 12 Inches
Ot)tar Water Mart
ZCNo Recorded Data Avalable D11ft unas
Sedar?t Oeposim
=Drainage Patients in Wetlands
Field Observation= Secondary irtdieatots (2 or more required):
0 s11 'Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surfatx Water: n n G fia.) Water-Stained Leaws
Depth to Free Water in Rt: 1 e (hL) Lom Soa Surwy Dm
?
?FAC- Neutral 'lest
Depth to Saaaated Sod:t (in.) Other (Explain in Remarksl
Renia+ks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name //
(Series and Phwe): Wt 4th jr
c F Drainage Cha= n~.-/V afj
4aL
?- Field Observmo
?
Tammany (Subgroup): ?.?d,•? > ???,.a a ..?
s Confirm Mapped Type: Yea No
Peelle Deseeaslarr.
Depth Mattat Color
fMimsell Moistf
Matta Calas Moab Taaaaa. Carcraticam
(MunnR Mdstd Abundance/Caetrest Steurttm
ere
.
.

S
Hydhdc Sal
Epipadodr ?; NO argerse Conant in Swhm Byer m sar* Solt
SuMft Odor = o *oft Sd6rg in satrdy Sails
A*& Maittoe Regime Wad m Lod Hy* Sags list
Aaridng Conditions - Wad on NatismW Hydhdie Sots ust
Gleyed nt Low-clnaens Colors Other (Expiwn in Ron"
Roll/U?l,,., ai?ea AR .9"e ce rch-c .,a eS wA.cA •ewc4-
?j4 O Am Id
A iOUnd Ss.?ls cd-c c
?
7
C
AWM "W 0" .
7.11-C Cc 0/ IWO, r
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydraow c Vegetation Present? 45z) No (Grade) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Me
Hydric Sails P om ? Yet Is Wm Sampling Point Within a Watland? Yes
v.L, C ?,ea ?c d o x •'.? ,'r s e e:., 12 -11 ' i
Approved by HaUSACE 2192
HJL
8193

Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name AP, , I -U .r • / dearest road _IX //3/
County Name of Evaluator Date -!D -
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Adjacent land use (within M2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation !oo
agriculture, urban/suburban -
impervious Surface
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series .-We-
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
X predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet
(2) 4
(3) srg. o mp" ;0. CA
Flooding and Wetness
x semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inu d& d
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottotnland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest XFreshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage - * 4 = 0
Bank/Shoreline stabilization - * 4 = 11 Total score
Pollutant removal 5 = _11)
Wildlife habitat 2
Aquatic life value _ 9 * 4 = ?10
Recreation/Education P * 1 = -i
Add T point if in sensitive watershed and >I01/6 nonpoint disturbance within 12 mile upstream