20052002 Ver 1_Complete File_20051116

B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Subject: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Froin: Mason Herndon <[e-mail]. ne.us>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:28:34 -0400
To: "David L. Timpy" <[e-mail]>, Steve Sollod
<[e-mail]>
CC: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>, "Brett M. Feulner"
<bmfeulner@dot. state. nc.us>, Anneliese Westphal <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Dave and Steve,
As we have discussed on the phone concerning B-4224 (Bridge 10
over Doctor's Creek at Pender/Duplin Co line), due to a dense
material at the interior bents of this bridge the contract has a
special provision allowing the contractor to pre drill the
interior bent piles ( see attached provision). This special
provision requires the contractor to install a casing around the
piles prior to auguring the hole. The special provision states a
30" casing however the contractor has requested permission to use
a standard 42" casing. The auger will be the same diameter as
the diagonal distance of the pile and the purpose of the casing
is to act as a safe gaurd and minimize impacts if any sediment
dislodges from the auger. Augured material will remain in the
hole or be removed entirely from the site and properly disposed
of, therefore this operation should have no additional permanent
impacts. However, the temporary placement of the casing around
the piling is a temporary impact, that was not addressed in the
permit application. There are seven piles per bent, totaling to
14 piles that may require pre drilling. This procedure may not
be required for all piles depending if bearing and tip can be
acquired without pre drilling.
In our phone conversations, you stated that this change in
construction methods will not require a modification or
refinement from your agencies. Please review this information
and advise if any further action from NCDOT is required to
proceed with this operation. If you have any questions or need
additional information please let me know.
FYI, I am unaware of using this method before in Division 3 so I
will be monitoring and evaluating it closely.
Thanks
Mason
Mason Herndon <mherndon a,dot.state.ne.us>
Environmental Supervisor I
Division Office, Highway Division 3, Operations, Division of Highways
1 of 1 7/18/2006 4:12 PM
RE: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Subject: RE: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
From: "Timpy, David L SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:39:47 -0400
To: "Mason Herndon" <[e-mail]>, "Steve Sollod"
<steve. [e-mail]>
CC: "Brian Wrenn" <[e-mail]>, "Brett M. Feulner"
<bmfeulner@dot. state. nc.us>, "Anneliese Westphal" <[e-mail]>
Mason and Anneliese,
This is to confirm that a permit modification for the temporary
impacts
associated with the pile installation for this project will not be
required.
It is my understanding this
permanent wetland or stream
conversations
the construction access for
is
authorized. The permanent
project have
not changed.
Dave
method will not result in any additional
impacts. In addition, based on our
this project has not changed from what
wetland and stream impacts for this
-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Herndon (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Timpy, David L SAW; Steve Sollod
Cc: Brian Wrenn; Brett M. Feulner; Anneliese Westphal
Subject: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Dave and Steve,
As we have discussed on the phone concerning B-4224 (Bridge 10
over Doctor's Creek at Pender/Duplin Co line), due to a dense
material at the interior bents of this bridge the contract has a
special provision allowing the contractor to pre drill the
interior bent piles ( see attached provision). This special
provision requires the contractor to install a casing around the
piles prior to auguring the hole. The special provision states a
30" casing however the contractor has requested permission to use
a standard 42" casing. The auger will be the same diameter as
the diagonal distance of the pile and the purpose of the casing
is to act as a safe gaurd and minimize impacts if any sediment
dislodges from the auger. Augured material will remain in the
hole or be removed entirely from the site and properly disposed
of, therefore this operation should have no additional permanent
impacts. However, the temporary placement of the casing around
1 of 2 7/18/2006 4:13 PM
RE: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
the piling is a temporary impact, that was not addressed in the
permit application. There are seven piles per bent, totaling to
14 piles that may require pre drilling. This procedure may not
be required for all piles depending if bearing and tip can be
acquired without pre drilling.
In our phone conversations, you stated that this change in
construction methods will not require a modification or
refinement from your agencies. Please review this information
and advise if any further action from NCDOT is required to
proceed with this operation. If you have any questions or need
additional information please let me know.
FYI, I am unaware of using this method before in Division 3 so I
will be monitoring and evaluating it closely.
Thanks
Mason
2 of 2 7/18/2006 4:13 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Subject: Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
From: Mason Herndon <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:04:01 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
CC: "Timpy, David L SAW" <[e-mail]>, Steve
Sollod <[e-mail]>, "Brett M. Feulner"
<[e-mail]. nc.us>, Anneliese Westphal <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
CAMA has given verbal approval to proceed, however they are requesting a Letter
of Refinement for this change in construction methods for their file. I will prepare
the request and address the additional 117 sq ft (0.003 ac) of temporary impacts. I
will cc each of you so you can have a record of this change for your files as well.
Brett, typically in the past I have been able to submit a request for a CAMA Letter
of Refinement directly without going through NEU. Is that still the policy or do I
need to prepare the letter and send it to you for Greg's signature and distribution?
Thanks
Mason
Brian Wrenn wrote:
I don't have a problem with addressing the additional temporary impacts through
email correspondence, but Ken would be the person handling this permit. If it is
ok with him I'm fine as well. My only request is a summary of the additional
temporary impacts that will result from the 42" casings. My guess is that it will
be small. thanks.
Brian
Mason Herndon wrote:
FYI, attached is the contract special provision that was not
attached to the
earlier e-mail.
MH
"Timpy, David L SAW" wrote:
1 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Mason and Anneliese,
This is to confirm that a permit modification for the
temporary impacts
associated with the pile installation for this project will
not be required.
It is my understanding this method will not result in any
additional
permanent wetland or stream impacts. In addition, based on
our conversations
the construction access for this project has not changed from
what is
authorized. The permanent wetland and stream impacts for this
project have
not changed.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Herndon [mailto:mherndonCa)dot.state.nc.us]
- --- -----.........
----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Timpy, David L SAW; Steve Sollod
Cc: Brian Wrenn; Brett M. Feulner; Anneliese Westphal
Subject: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Dave and Steve,
As we have discussed on the phone concerning B-4224 (Bridge 10
over Doctor's Creek at Pender/Duplin Co line), due to a dense
material at the interior bents of this bridge the contract has
a
special provision allowing the contractor to pre drill the
interior bent piles ( see attached provision). This special
provision requires the contractor to install a casing around
the
piles prior to auguring the hole. The special provision
states a
30" casing however the contractor has requested permission to
use
a standard 42" casing. The auger will be the same diameter as
the diagonal distance of the pile and the purpose of the
casing
is to act as a safe gaurd and minimize impacts if any sediment
dislodges from the auger. Augured material will remain in the
hole or be removed entirely from the site and properly
disposed
of, therefore this operation should have no additional
permanent
impacts. However, the temporary placement of the casing
around
the piling is a temporary impact, that was not addressed in
the
permit application. There are seven piles per bent, totaling
2 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
to
14 piles that may require pre drilling. This procedure may
not
be required for all piles depending if bearing and tip can be
acquired without pre drilling.
In our phone conversations, you stated that this change in
construction methods will not require a modification or
refinement from your agencies. Please review this information
and advise if any further action from NCDOT is required to
proceed with this operation. If you have any questions or
need
additional information please let me know.
FYI, I am unaware of using this method before in Division 3 so
I
will be monitoring and evaluating it closely.
Thanks
Mason
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 - phone
919-733-5893 -fax
Mason Herndon <mherndonCa,)dot.state: nc.us>
Environmental Supervisor I
Division Office, Highway Division 3, Operations, Division of Highways
3 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Subject: Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
From: Steve Sollod <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:06:30 -0400
To: Mason Herndon <[e-mail]>
CC: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>, "Timpy, David L SAW"
<[e-mail]>, "Brett M. Feulner"
<[e-mail]>, Anneliese Westphal <[e-mail]>, Ken
Averitte <[e-mail]>
Mason,
DCM is satisfied with the previous e-mail request (Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006) for
the change in pile installation methods and the information provided on the additional
quantity (117 sq ft) of temporay impacts to 404 wetlands as stated below. I have
drafted a Letter of Refinement and will send it to you and copy Greg Thorpe, unless
PDEA prefers it to be sent to Greg.
Steve
Mason Herndon wrote:
CAMA has given verbal approval to proceed, however they are requesting a Letter
of Refinement for this change in construction methods for their file. I will prepare
the request and address the additional 117 sq ft (0.003 ac) of temporary impacts. I
will cc each of you so you can have a record of this change for your files as well.
Brett, typically in the past I have been able to submit a request for a CAMA Letter of
Refinement directly without going through NEU. Is that still the policy or do I need
to prepare the letter and send it to you for Greg's signature and distribution?
Thanks
Mason
Brian Wrenn wrote:
I don't have a problem with addressing the additional temporary impacts through
email correspondence, but Ken would be the person handling this permit. If it is
ok with him I'm fine as well. My only request is a summary of the additional
temporary impacts that will result from the 42" casings. My guess is that it will be
small. thanks.
Brian
Mason Herndon wrote:
1 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
FYI, attached is the contract special provision that was not
attached to the
earlier e-mail.
MH
"Timpy, David L SAW" wrote:
Mason and Anneliese,
This is to confirm that a permit modification for the
temporary impacts
associated with the pile installation for this project will not
be required.
It is my understanding this method will not result in any
j additional
permanent wetland or stream impacts. In addition, based on our
conversations
the construction access for this project has not changed from
what is
authorized. The permanent wetland and stream impacts for this
project have
not changed.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Herndon [mailto:_mherndonc??dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Timpy, David L SAW; Steve Sollod
Cc: Brian Wrenn; Brett M. Feulner; Anneliese Westphal
Subject: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
Dave and Steve,
As we have discussed on the phone concerning B-4224 (Bridge 10
over Doctor's Creek at Pender/Duplin Co line), due to a dense
material at the interior bents of this bridge the contract has a
special provision allowing the contractor to pre drill the
interior bent piles ( see attached provision). This special
provision requires the contractor to install a casing around the
piles prior to auguring the hole. The special provision states
a
30" casing however the contractor has requested permission to
use
a standard 42" casing. The auger will be the same diameter as
the diagonal distance of the pile and the purpose of the casing
is to act as a safe gaurd and minimize impacts if any sediment
dislodges from the auger. Augured material will remain in the
hole or be removed entirely from the site and properly disposed
of, therefore this operation should have no additional permanent
impacts. However, the temporary placement of the casing around
the piling is a temporary impact, that was not addressed in the
permit application. There are seven piles per bent, totaling to
2 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
Re: B-4224 Pre-drilling of piles
14 piles that may require pre drilling. This procedure may not
be required for all piles depending if bearing and tip can be
acquired without pre drilling.
In our phone conversations, you stated that this change in
construction methods will not require a modification or
refinement from your agencies. Please review this information
and advise if any further action from NCDOT is required to
proceed with this operation. If you have any questions or need
additional information please let me know.
FYI, I am unaware of using this method before in Division 3 so I
will be monitoring and evaluating it closely.
Thanks
Mason
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 -phone
919-733-5893 - fax
Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
[phone] X230 phone
[phone] FAX
3 of 3 7/18/2006 4:14 PM
y ,
?Ty M STALE
PAM
1 0 ) r_
?m U1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 1, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Joel A. Johnson
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road), Pender County, at the Duplin
County line Replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Doctors Creek,
State Project 8.2271501, F. A. Project BRZ-1305(2) B-4224
A scoping meeting for the Subject Bridge was held at Century Center's Roadway
Design Conference Room on August 7, 2003.
I he tollowtn2 DeoDle were to attenaance:
Bill Goodwin PDEA Ray McIntyre Program Development
Joel Johnson PDEA Mack Bailey Structure Design
Ann Steedley PDEA / P1CS Andre Davenport Structure Design
Steve Gurganus PDEA / PICS Tim Gardiner PDEA / PICS
Joe Futrell Traffic Control Tinnette Hales Right of Way
Wayne Cody Bridge Maintenance Jim Harris Rail Division
Eugene Tarascio Geotechnica) Parks Icenhour Location Surveys
Ron Allen Roadway Jeanie Tyson Roadway
David Webb Hydraulics Jay Twisdale Hydraulics
Sarah McBride Historic Preservation Office Karen Reynolds Traffic Engineering
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document Apri12004
Right of Way: April 2005
Construction: April 2006
Bridie No. 63 was built in 1966. It is 121 feet long, 24.1 feet clear deck width, and 14
feet over the bed of the creek. The structure is posted 20 tons Single Vehicle and 23 tons
Truck tractor semi-trailer. The sufficiency rating is 36.3 and it has 11 years of estimated
remaining useful life.
Traffic Information SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road) is a paved, Rural Local Route with
no posted speed limit. Current ADT: 800 VPD, Projected 2025 ADT: 1400 VPD, 2%
Duals, 1%v TTST. Pender County Schools stated that no school buses cross this bridge.
Accidents Two accidents were recorded in a check of a recent three-year period. Both
involved speeding and at least one was a DWI. They were not on the bridge.
Possible Offsite Detour: would utilize SR 1001 Pender County (Willard Road), SR 1307
Pender County (Rockfish Road), SR 1165 Duplin County, NC 41 Duplin County,
SR 1156 Duplin County, SR 1155 Duplin County (Shaw Road). There would be 9 miles
additional travel.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Pender County Emergency Services stated closure of the bridge will not
significantly effect fire department or EMS operations in that portion of the county.
The Wildlife Resource Commission recommends replacing this bridge with a
bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
The Division of Coastal Management Green light project.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service General comments only.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends geotechnical evaluation be made.
The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service stated this project is located in a
river basin that is likely to support NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources including
the threatened shortnose sturgeon.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has offered written
comments indicating there are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. If the replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely
that significant archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is
recommended. If, however, the replacement is a new alignment, an evaluation must be
made to determine the effects of the replacement upon archaeological resources.
A search of their files indicates no structures of historical or architectural importance
located within the planning area.
Division 3 has offered written comments recommending an offsite detour as
indicated above and replace bridge at existing location.
The Natural Resources Technical Report states the project may impact one
jurisdictional surface water and one jurisdictional wetland area. Permits likely required
for this project are a Section 404 NWP 23 along with their corresponding Section 401
Water Quality Certifications. Permits possibly required include a Section 404 NWP 33
and a CAMA Permit. Impacts to federally protected species are unresolved pending
determination for the shortnose sturgeon by NCDOT biologist. No High Quality Water
Resources exist in the study area. NCDOT should explore the option of lengthening the
bridge and removing any existing causeway that is currently in the wetland for mitigation
for any impacts that may occur from this project.
The Location and Surveys Unit states that there is no evidence of any
underground telephone lines or water or sewer lines. Utility density is very light. An off-
site detour may be an impact to local farmers.
The Geotechnical Unit states based on a site visit and a records search, there are
no environmental/geotechnical concerns that would present significant construction
problems.
The Hydraulics Unit recommended replacing Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145
feet in length at the same location as the existing structure. The new bridge should have
the same low steel and bridge deck elevation as that of the existing bridge. No bridge
deck drains will be allowed to discharge directly into Doctors Creek. If, however, the off-
site detour is determined to be impracticable, an on-site detour will be necessary. The
temporary detour structure will require an 80-foot bridge placed to the east (downstream)
of the existing bridge. Strictly from a hydraulic point of view, the detour grade of the
stream crossing should be the same as that of the existing structure.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
A rural local route with between 400 and 1500 vehicles per day and with a statutory speed
limit of 55 mph should have a minimum of 28 feet clear deck width including a 22-foot
travelway and 3-foot offsets.
Alternate 1
Replace Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145 feet in length, at the same location as the
existing structure. The new bridge should have a low steel and deck elevation
approximately the same as that of the existing bridge. The length of an off-site detour
would be approximately 9.5 miles.
Alternate 2
Replace Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145 feet in length, at the same location as the
existing structure. The new bridge should have a low steel and deck elevation
approximately the same as that of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained during
construction by placing a one lane temporary detour bridge of 80 feet in length
downstream of the existing bridge.
NEXT STEPS
Preliminary Design & Cost Estimate: Ron Allen of Roadway Design has indicated that
he will provide preliminary design and cost estimate information by December 2003.
Right of Way Cost Estimate: PDEA will pursue a R/W estimate once the preliminary
design and cost estimates are received.
i

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
r9@29169P
NOV 1 6 2.005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TwPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 14, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers C? 5- Z
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: Supplement to the Nationwide 23 Permit Application and CAMA Permit
Application, for the replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Doctors Creek on SR
1728, Duplin and Pender County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1305(2), State
Project No. 8.2271501, TIP Project No. B-4224.
On October 24, 2005 and October 4, 2005 respectively, the NCDOT submitted a Nationwide
23 application and a CAMA Major Permit application for the replacement of Bridge No. 63
over Doctors Creek on SR 1728. On November 8, 2005 the NCDOT informed the USACE
and DCM that the cross section drawings included in the permit-drawings were not correct
and did not match the cross sections shown in the half size plans. Included with this letter
are the corrected permit-drawing cross section drawings to replace those included with the
permit package. No changes in impacts or project design have occurred.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Brett Feulner at 715-
1488.
Sincerely, (
Gregory .l. Tho e, P D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E. Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mason Herndon, Div 3 DEO
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
NOV 2005 14:17
IJOV-9M" 14:1&
A!='A
?nn
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N'l4f
r<
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secrei
November 10, 2005
MEMORANDUM: r '17
TO: Brian Wrenn/Nicole Thomson COPY
Environmental Biological Superyisor
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: NC Department of Transportation
Project Location: Pender/Duplin: Where SR 1305 & SR 1155 meet at Bridge 10 over Doctor's Creek
near iWallace, NC.
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to replace the existing 121' x 26' timber and concrete
bridge with a 145' x 33' concrete bridge.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
December 1, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Bill Arrington
at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE 5
t C OF- /V C 2? /Cof ,, d/-'Ca I
ii?X C (cl S I I 0r/ . ! tv/, #_ fn Z?o ( 4,C' ,? .
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
l ?
N d ?-u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

lye, ?i?, •.,??
!?? NCCU
`wYp?c?yf (i
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYN 0%,PPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 24, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator ,J
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application foE the for the replacement of Bridge No.
63 over Doctors Creek on SR 4- Duplin and Pender County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1305(2), State Project No. 8.2271501, Division 3, TIP Project
No. B-4224, WBS #33581.1.1.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), EEP Confirmation letter,
Natural Resource Technical Report, permit drawings, and %2 size plans for the above
referenced project. The document states that Bridge No. 63 over Doctor's Creek will be
replaced with a new 145-foot long 28-foot wide structure on the same location. Permanent
wetland impacts will total 0.32 acres. Top down construction methods will be used to build
the bridge. No temporary impacts will occur. During construction, traffic will be detoured
along existing area roads. There will be no in water construction between February 15 and
June 30 to protect anadromous fish spawning.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (HUC 03030007).
The project will not impact Doctor's Creek. Doctors Creek has been assigned a best usage
classification of C Sw, by the Division of Water Quality. There are no HQW, ORW WS-I,
or WS-II waters within one mile of the project area. Approximately one mile down stream,
Doctors Creek flows into Rock Fish Creek (DWQ # 18-74-29b). Rock Fish Creek is on the
303d list of biologically impaired streams potentially due to major industrial point source,
habitat modification, and bank/shoreline destabilization. Permanent wetland impacts will
total 0.32 acres and consist of 0.28 acres of fill and 0.04 acres of excavation in wetlands. No
temporary impacts will occur and there will be no impacts to surface waters.
Bridge Demolition: The super structure of Bridge No. 63 is composed of pre-stressed
concrete channels with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure is composed of pre-
cast concrete caps on timber piles. Bridge components are slated to be removed without
dropping any components into Doctor's Creek. In accordance with NCDOT's Best
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
? r
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and removal for projects that require a CAMA
permit, no components of the bridge will be allowed to drop into the water.
All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
MITIGATION
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and
to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts.
Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design and include:
• No Bents will be placed in the water
• No additional impacts will occur as a result of utility relocations
• Fill slopes will be 3:1 in jurisdictional wetlands
• No Mechanized clearing will be used in jurisdictional wetlands
• Top Down Construction will be used
• Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the
greatest extent possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.32
acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the
EEP program. See attached confirmation letter from EEP.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 2003 the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists eleven federally protected species for Duplin and Pender
County (Table 4 from Attached NRTR below). The Biological Conclusion for all federally
protected species is No Effect because no habitat occurs in the project area.
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species for Pender and Duplin Counties.
SCIENTIFIC NADIE COMMON NAIVE STATUS COUNTY
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E Pender
.41ligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A) Pender &
Duplin
Amaranthus pumilur seabeach amaranth T Pender
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T Pendcr
Carex lutea golden sedge E Pender
Charadrius melodus piping plover T Pender
Lysimachia aspendaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Pendcr
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E Pendcr &
Duplin
Schwalbea antericana American chaffseed E Pender
Thalicinim cooleyi Cooley's meado-vrue E Pender
Tricltechus manatus West Indian manatee E Pender
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests
that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-
2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met. No written
concurrence is required. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a)
and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for
their notification. - -
In a separate application, NCDOT is requesting a Coastal Area Management Act Major
Development Permit for this project from the NC Division of Coastal Management. Copies
of this application as well as the CAMA application will be.posted on our website at the
following address http://www.ncdot.orb/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.htm].
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Fculner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
-G Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
C Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E. Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Div 3 DEO
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP Mr. Bill Goodwin, PDEA
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
-co stem
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
,.? ?00S
•J
B4224, Bridge 63 over the Doctor's Creek, Duplin and Pender Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated September 9, 2005, the impacts are located in CU
03030007 of the Cape Fear River Basin in the Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) and Southern
Outer Coastal Plain (SOCP) Eco-Regions, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.32 acre
The subject project is not 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. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation
to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Wil ' 7D.Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. David Timpy, USACE-Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4224
4' T-A
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1651 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4224
State Project No. 8.2271501
Federal Project No. BR7,1305(2)
A.
B.
C.
Proiect Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 63 on SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road) over
Doctors Creek in Pender County at the Duplin County line. The bridge will be
replaced with a new bridge measuring 145 feet in length and 28 feet in width at
approximately the same location as the existing bridge. This bridge will provide
for a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each side. The new approach
roadway will be a 22 foot travelway with 4 foot grassed shoulders. The approach
work will consist of 485 feet to the south and 470 feet to the north of the existing
bridge. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as
the existing grade at this location. Traffic will be detoured on existing local roads
during construction as shown in Figure 1. There will be 9 miles of additional
travel.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge- Maintenance records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 36.3
out of 100. The bridge's four span superstructure is composed of prestressed
concrete channels with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure is composed
of precast concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge's low structural evaluation
rating qualifies the bridge as structurally deficient according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type H 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 Stabilization
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
03 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
2
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 UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
.-number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
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 Proiect Information:
Estimated Cost:
Construction $ 700,000
Right of Way $ 31,600
Total $ 731,600
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 800 VPD
Year 2025 - 1400 VPD
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 22 feet wide with 4-foot shoulders. Shoulder width will be
increased by three feet where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed: 60 mph
Design exceptions: It is anticipated that no design exceptions will be required.
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Construction Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic on local roads during construction as shown in
Figure 1. There will be 9 miles of additional travel.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 63 has 4 spans totaling 121 feet in length. The bridge superstructure is
composed of prestressed concrete channels with an asphalt wearing surface. The
substructure is composed of precast concrete caps on timber piles. All components of the
bridge, except the precast concrete caps, will be removed without dropping any of their
components into Waters of the United States. However, there is the potential for
components of the precast concrete caps to drop into the Waters of the United States
during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the precast concrete
caps is approximately 3 cubic yards. This project can be classified as a Case 2, where no
instream work can occure during the moritorium period from February 15 to June 30 due
to anadromous fish migration.
4
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 1305.
One alternative, to replace in place with an on-site detour just east of the existing bridge,
was rejected due to the increased cost and increased impacts to wetlands.
Environmental Commitments:
Please see attached Green Sheet for Project Commitments.
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 any habitat where federally
ered or threatened s
ecies ma
occur?
listed endan
? X
y
g
p
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
Fx_1
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? FX]
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ? -
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? F-1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? F1 X
5
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F-1 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)? F
1 X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
-
growth or land use for the area? 1 X
F
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
F
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? 1 X
F
6
(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? F-1 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) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F-1 X
(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? F1 X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? F-1 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)? F-1 X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? ? X
7
(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 Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item (3) Anadromous fish
A moratorium for anadromous fish on in-water construction activities will be
observed from February 15 to June 30.
Item (4) Wetlands
impacts to wetlands will be minimized by closing the road and replacing Bridge
No. 63 with a new bridge in the same location and at the same elevation as the
existing bridge.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4224
State Project No. 8.2271501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1305(2)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 63 on SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road) over
Doctors Creek in Pender County at the Duplin County line. The bridge will be
replaced with a new bridge measuring 145 feet in length and 28 feet in width at
approximately the same location as the existing bridge. This bridge will provide
for a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each side. The new approach
roadway will be a 22 foot travelway with 4 foot grassed shoulders. The approach
work will consist of 485 feet to the south and 470 feet to the north of the existing
bridge. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as
the existing grade at this location. Traffic will be detoured on existing local roads
during construction. See Figure 1 for the detour route.
Cate orical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
_X-TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Teresa Hart, PE, CPM, Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date William T. Goodwin Jr., P.E., nit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Date oel A. Jo on, Project Development Engineer
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date PV John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 63
On SR 1305 over Doctors Creels
Pender County at the Duplin County line
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1305(2)
State Project No. 8.2271501
T.I.P. No. B-4224
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Three Construction Office,
Structure Design Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 63.
This reach of Doctors Creek has potential as a travel corridor for anadromous fish.
Therefore, an in-stream moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to June 30. The
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as
applicable.
The total time of road closure for this project should be held to a minimum due
to the 9 mile detour. The contractor should be given incentives to minimize the road
closure for the project. The total project construction time can be longer, as long as
work can be done under traffic.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
May 2004
?+ f 23
luvi
•! ! „ h 'tom
1 % chw j /
,?:? • i 49
P40.1

?- /.2 q + -
It`
n
L I I • i.
• ;A ).w
_ 45 '
21
126
5E •?,;,? P382

P 1.5 41 ??=?-?- •J? E
1 ?OiO
-

? .? •?
11
` . ?-
I i
? ? i ,; „?, _` •` -- ? k ~ ? e'
?' 425 ,
t '
> f,j
?- •? - .A 1T7• ^ ?
r•• ?p.,A
'
i r?
.•'r ?-
' L? L?yf jay
" •,
?~ ^??? •I
om f
A
•
1. v \
jLCOy?+ f3
i ) •
?nEon T j..
i .?.?? . t?
1
7 •l . `?.
T M
, ?.

k
l
n

P60 f" 0232

+ ??, f?e.f o4?- Rawfc
It 1 i n ,y

' , ?Fr•.
? 111 ?w,
i YrMal{Lo.11
M T ?'

1
I
1 b
i1 a.+w

a
NORM CAROLINA DEPARDIENT OF
o TRANSPORTATION
o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?r ,,i?-
? PRojr= DEvEtAl'MENr &
?
.
CPTR ENVIR023 MTIALANALYSIS BRANCH.

PENDER COUNTY
Rui ACE BRIDGE NO. 63 ON SR 1305
OVER DOCTOR'S CREEK
B-4224

Figure 1
d.,. SWj o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
April 7, 2004
TO: Clay Swindell
Office of Human Environment
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
L;11 i1-rlVS PARTICIPATION
RECEIVED
APR 13 2004
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation '"?' rr
FROM: David Brook C ,
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report: Replacement of Bridge No. 63 over
Doctor's Creek, Pender and Duplin Counties, ER03-0957
We have received the archaeological survey report for the above project from the Department
of Transportation (NCDOT).
During the course of the survey no sites were discovered within the project area. NCDOT has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: 1/ Matt Wilkerson
www.bpo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Tclephone/Faz
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone].715-4801
SiiRVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh- NC 27699-4617 !9191711.4761 .711.ARni
?EGE/U?
a
JUN 9 2003
O H GS1ON OF
WAYS P
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ,TFVELOP0
State Historic Preservation Office AI ANAV(S
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
May 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook 2 Cox 1 C
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1305 over Doctor's Creek,
B-4224, Pender County, ER03-0957
We have received notification of the bridge replacement referenced above and would like to
comment.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant
archaeological resources would be affected and no investigations would be recommended. If,
however, the replacement is to be in a new location, please forward a map to this office
indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effects of the
replacement upon archaeological resources.
To avoid potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources, we recommend that the
"replacement-in-place with traffic detoured off-site" alternative be adopted for this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
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.
-,vww.hDo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Addre33 TclephondFa:
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] •715-4801
May 29, 2003
Page 2.
"Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 63 ON SR 1305
OVER DOCTOR'S CREEK
DUPLIN AND PENDER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B4224
STATE CONTRACT NO. A304259
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2271501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1305(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
X10 V C

MARCH 2003
t
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ............................................................................3
1.5 TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................................4
2.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................4
2.3 WATER RESOURCES .............................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................................................6
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification .........................................................................................6
2.3.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................6
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharge .....................................................................6
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network .........................................6
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge ...........................................................................7
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................7
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp ..........................................................................8
3.1.2 Mesic Pine Flatwoods ...............................................................................................8
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community ...........................................................................9
3.1.4 Agricultural Fields ....................................................................................................9
3.1.5 Old Field Community ...............................................................................................9
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .....................................................................................................9
3.3 WILDLIFE ..............................................................................................................................9
3.3.1 Terrestrial Fauna .....................................................................................................10
3.3.2 Aquatic Fauna .........................................................................................................10
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS ..............................................11
3.5 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED AQUATIC IMPACTS ....................................................... I 1
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..............................................................................................12
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................................12
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....................................................12
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................12
4.1.3 Permits ....................................................................................................................13
4.1.4 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................13
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..............................................................................................14
4.1.4.2 Minimization .........................................................................................14
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................14
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .....................................................................................14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ....................................................................................15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State listed Species ..............................................23
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................26
ii
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of the replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1305 and SR
1155 (Pigford Road) over Doctor's Creek in Pender and Duplin Counties, North Carolina (Figure
1). The design of the proposed bridge has not been determined.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Data sources utilized in the pre-
field investigation- of the study area include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Wallace West,
1984).
• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey for Pender County,
North Carolina (1990).
• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for Duplin County,
North Carolina (1954).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for
7.5-minute Wallace West quadrangle (1994).
• N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the study area (1:200
scale).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ
2000a and 2002).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study
area was obtained from the USFWS list of protected species and candidate species (29 January
2003), the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Proposed
Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
NCDOT MARCH 2003

I -75 _ J i ,.24 4 ^

23
?
I'M

i
,1(12 I

• ?.
"DO I'M 1101
/ h
W
/

•
n

,
'P ? L- ? ? Q
256 - ?

P40
1 -58-
T
C-11m, L-
• - ?? ?t IA',t w • mm
7? 117
1^^^

x'41 13 56 TW6ff 1

21
426
o P382
a
2 t!!a?
I OJww¦ Clvp?l
429
a ? .
<1
Lj, 14
••? ,r..'
Now
LGf IC?1 1 `•t}
IX7
' P60 ' 0232
i?
WMA
1'I,
f
Waal O
!
¦Y01G>W
....:l.P. E N $t E R. ,al, M
6 a
. ¦t
GRM Rrd1 N¦¦r :I
II( f
sn¦u
111 1
4a ,10N1:t ry,? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4 . TRANSPORTATION
• DIVLSION OF MGITWAYS
4 PRomcr DEvELoPMENT &

?OR7p1•H'Q? ENVIRONmm4TAL ANALYSIS BRANCH .
PENDER COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 63 ON SR 1305
OVER DOCTOR'S CREEK
B-4224 '
Figure 1
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
General field surveys and wetlands investigations were conducted within the study area
by biologists on the staff of Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc. (JCA) on 13 January 2003.
The corridor investigated extended 300 feet (90 meters (m)) upstream and downstream from the
centerline of the existing bridge and 1500 feet north and south from the bridge along SR 1305
and SR 1155. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques:
active searches and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identification of characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, nests and burrows).
All wetlands subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and harbors Act of
1899 were identified and delineated according to methods prescribed in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the USACE's 6 March 1992
Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual.
1.4 Qualification of Field Investigators
Investigator: Tracy E. Rush
Education: B.S. Biology (Botany Option), The Pennsylvania State University
M.S. Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University
Experience: Senior Biologist/Botanist, JCA, July 2000-Present
Botanist, Washington State Natural Heritage Program, April 1997-June 2000.
Biologist/Botanist, JCA, January 1993-January 1996.
Expertise: Protected species surveys for flora and fauna, native plant identification, biotic
community identification, wetland delineation, restoration and monitoring, forest
management, vegetation monitoring and GPS/GIS.
Investigator: Katie Barch
Education: B.S. Environmental Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
M.S. Soil and Water Science, University of Florida
Experience: Wetland Biologist, JCA, October 2002-Present.
Environmental Technician, St. Johns River Water Management District, FL.
Expertise: Wetland delineation and restoration, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, vegetation
and groundwater monitoring, protected species surveys for flora and fauna and
use of ArcView software.
1.5 Terminology
The definitions used for area descriptions contained in this report are as follows:
• Study Area (Study Corridor) - denotes the bubble area for the proposed project (area
indicated on the aerial photograph by DOT).
• Project Vicinity- denotes an area extending 0.5 mile (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) on all
sides of the study area.
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
o Project Region- is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources located within the study area are discussed below.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Pender and Duplin Counties lie in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The counties range in elevation from approximately sea level (Pender County) to 167
feet (50 m) (Duplin County) above mean sea level (msl). Elevations within the study,area range
from approximately 35 to 55 feet (10 to 16 m) above msl.
2.2 Soils
Nine soil types occur within the study area (USDA 1990 and 1954): Fallingston fine
sandy loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Kenansville fine sandy loam, Marvyn and Craven soils,
Mixed alluvial land, Muckalee loam, Norfolk loamy fine sand, Pactolus fine sand and
Woodstown loamy fine sand. All study area soils, their drainage characteristics and hydric
classifications are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Studv Area Soils and Characteristics.
Map
Unit
Symbol Specific Map Unit Percent
Slope Drainage Class Hydric
Class Hydric
Inclusions
Fa Fallsington fine sandy
loam 0 to 2 poor hydric No
GoA Goldsboro fine sand loam 0 to 2 moderate non h dric Yes
Kb Kenansville fine sandy
loam 0 to 2 well drained non hydric No
MCC Marvand Craven soils 6 to 12 well/moderate non h dric Yes
Mh Mixed alluvial land 0 to 2 poor h dric No
Mk Muckalee loam 0 to 2 poor h dric No
NoB Norfolk loam fine sand 2 to 6 well drained non h dric Yes
PaA Pactolus fine sand 0 to 2 moderate/ poor non h dric Yes
We Woodstown loamy fine
sand 0 to 2 moderate non hydric Yes
Fallsington fine sandy loam: Fallsington fine sandy loam is a poorly drained soil on slightly
depressed baylike areas on broad upland flats. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths 0.5
to 1 feet from the surface and runoff potential is high. The flooding frequency for Fallsington
fine sandy loam is never.
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Goldsboro fine sandy loam: Goldsboro fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil on
smooth uplands. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths 2 to 3 feet below the surface and
runoff potential is medium. The flooding frequency for Goldsboro fine sandy loam is never.
Kenansville fine sandy loam: Kenansville fine sandy loam is a well drained soil on smooth
uplands. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths 6 to 10 feet from the surface and runoff
potential is slow to medium. The flooding frequency for Kenansville fine sandy loam is never.
Marvyn and Craven soils: Marvyn and Craven soils are well to moderately well drained soils on
side slopes on uplands. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths greater than 6 feet for
Marvyn soils and 2 to 3 feet from the surface for Craven soils and runoff potential is medium.
The flooding frequency for Marvyn and Craven soils is never.
Mixed alluvial land: Mixed alluvial land is a poorly drained soil on flood plains along major
streams. The seasonal high water table occurs at or near the surface and runoff potential is slow
to medium. The flooding frequency for Mixed alluvial land is frequent.
Muckalee loam: Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil on flood plains. The seasonal high
water table occurs at depths 0.5 to 1.5 feet from the surface and runoff potential is very slow.
The flooding frequency for Muckalee loam is frequent.
Norfolk loamy fine sand: Norfolk loamy fine sand is a well drained soil on convex interstream
divides near major drainageways. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths 4 to 6 feet from
the surface and runoff potential is medium. The flooding frequency for Norfolk loamy fine sand
is never.
Pactolus fine sand: Pactolus fine sand is a moderately well drained or somewhat poorly drained
soil on slight depressions on the uplands near the coast and on low ridges on terraces. The
seasonal high water table occurs at depths 1.5 to 2.5 feet from the surface and runoff potential is
slow. The flooding frequency for Pactolus fine sand is never.
Woodstown loamy fine sand: Woodstown loamy fine sand is a moderately drained soil in broad
interstream upland areas. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths 1.5 feet from the
surface and runoff potential is slow to medium. The flooding frequency for Woodstown loamy
fine sand is never.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Best
Usage Classifications, and the "quality" of the water resources. Probable impacts to these water
bodies are also discussed, as are a means to minimize those impacts.
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Doctor's Creek will be the only surface water directly impacted by the proposed project.
Waters in the project vicinity are part of the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 03030007.
The Cape Fear River Basin contains 24 subbasins. The study area is found in the Northeast Cape
Fear River and Rockfish Creek subbasin 03-06-22. Study area waters drain to the east into
Rockfish Creek and eventually south into the Northeast Cape Fear River (NCDENR-DWQ
2000).
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ui
Doctor's Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of Class "C SW" (index
#18-74-29-3, 7/1/73) by the Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ 2002). A "C"
classification designates waters that are for aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary
recreation. The Swamp Waters "SW" supplemental classification designates this region as
having-waters naturally more acidic and with lower levels of dissolved oxygen. Neither High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominantly undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the study area.
Potential impacts to water quality from point and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are based upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharge
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural land are likely to be the primary source of water
quality degradation to the water resources located within the project vicinity. The surrounding
vicinity appears to be mainly used for agriculture with surrounding forested land. Nutrient
loading and increased sedimentation from agricultural runoff and forestry affects water quality.
Inputs of nonpoint source pollution from a few private residences within the study area also are
likely to contribute to water quality degradation.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 303(d) list for
North Carolina indicates that Doctor's Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin is not listed as an
impaired waterway (NCDENR-DWQ 2000b).
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed
every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the DWQ) assessed
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites
throughout the state.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six
months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next
generation. Different taxa of macroinertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby,
long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from
pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present,
the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions.
There are no biological stations within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the study area (NCDENR-DWQ
2000a).
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required
to register-a permit. There are no point source dischargers located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the
study area.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of the proposed project bridge will impact water resources. The estimated
linear impact is the width of the study area since the project is still in the design phase. Project
construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increases in nutrient loading during construction through runoff from temporarily
exposed land surfaces.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills and increased vehicular use.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the protection of surface water and water supplies
must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those
communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
7
NCDOT MARCH 2003,
TIP B-4114 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
project are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the
study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are included for each
described plant and animal species. Plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968) and Weakley
(2000). Animal Taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985), National
Geographic (1987) and Rohde et al. (1994). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Spoor evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range
distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the
study area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp is located on floodplains of small blackwater
streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type is most common comprising
approximately 75% of the study corridor. Canopy vegetation includes bald cypress (Taxodiunt
distichum), swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and red
maple (Ater rubrum). Understory species include red maple, red bay (Persea borbonia), titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
Shrub species include sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), Leucothoe
(Leucothoe axillaris) and inkberry (Ilex glabra). The herb layer includes cane (Arundinaria
tecta) and wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus). Vines are also common including catbrier (Smilax
spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and yellow jessamine (Gelsemiun: sempervirens).
A portion of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (northwest quadrant) has been
recently clearcut and consists of shrubs and saplings including swamp black gum, red maple, titi
and Leucothoe. The herbaceous layer includes cane and cat-tails (Typha latifolia).
3.1.2 Mesic Pine Flatwoods
Mesic Pine Flatwoods are located on mesic (non-wetland sites) on rolling Coastal Plain
sediments (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type is located on forested uplands
adjacent to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community type and comprises
approximately 10% of the study corridor. Canopy vegetation is dominated loblolly pine (Pin us
taeda). Understory species include red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak
(Quercus nigra) and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The shrub layer includes inkberry,
dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) and sweet leaf (Symplocos tinctoria). The herb layer is
dominated by bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Vines are also common including Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), catbrier, poison ivy and yellow jessamine.
8
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed communities consist of the road shoulder and residential
landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and
herbicide applications. Residential landscapes receive more frequent mowing, general
maintenance, and disturbance.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering stormwater run-off and reducing runoff velocities. Herbaceous vegetation located in the
road shoulder consisted of mowed fescue (Festuca spp.), broomsedge (Andropogoli spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifoiliun:) and blackberry (Rubus spp.).
Vegetation associated with the residential landscapes included mainly unvegetated areas
and grasses such as fescue, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.). A
few trees and shrubs were also located in the residential landscapes including loblolly pine and
various ornamental species.
3.1.4 Agricultural Fields
The agricultural field community includes land currently being used for the growth of
various crops.
3.1.5 Old Field Community
There is one old field community within the study area. This area was dominated by
young loblolly pine and early successional species including blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle,
dog fennel, goldenrod and sweetgum.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Doctor's Creek, will be potentially impacted by the proposed
project. Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource
influence faunal composition of aquatic communities. The streambed width (bank to bank) is 40
feet (12 m) at the bridge, the main channel is approximately 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and the channel
depth is approximately 1 foot (0.3 m). The channel substrate is composed primarily of sand.
The flow of the creek within the study area was moderate.
3.3 Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities located within the study area. Each species present fills its own ecological
niche and there are often complex interactions between all species present. Examples of these
relationships include symbiotic, competitive and predator/prey relationships.
9
NCDOT AIARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.3.1 Terrestrial Fauna
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the study area include: raccoon*
(Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus). Other mammal species that may exploit the forest edge and open habitats within
the project are include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) (Webster et al.
1985).
The forest and forest edge habitats located in the study area provide shelter and forage for
a variety of avian species. Birds that may be found in these habitats include the American crow*
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee* (Poecile carolinensis), turkey vulture*
(Cathartes aura), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), downy woodpecker* (Picoides
pubescens), rufous sided towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthabnus), American robin* (Turdus
migratorius), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and Carolina wren* (Thryothorus
ludovicianus) (National Geographic 1987).
The reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities within the study
.
area include Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), five-lined skink (Eunieces fasciatus), eastern
hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos) and the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis siralis)
(Martof et al. 1980).
Terrestrial and ecotonal areas provide habitat for amphibians such as southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), eastern
spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki), southern road (Bufo terrestris), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (Martof et al. 1980).
3.3.2 Aquatic Fauna
Aquatic fauna present within the study area are dependent upon physical characteristics
of the water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent
to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. Fauna associated with the
aquatic communities include various vertebrate and invertebrate species.
Representative species of fish that may be found in the study area include American eel
(Anguilla rostrata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), brown bullhead (Ameiurus
nebulosus), redfm pickerel (Esox americanus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and eastern mosquitofish (Gantbusia holbrooki) (Rohde et al. 1994).
Doctor's Creek provides habitat for a variety of reptiles. Species which may be present
in or near the creek include yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia erythrogaster), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), brown water snake (Nerodia
taxispilota) and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) (Martof et al. 1980).
10
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Invertebrates that would be expected within the study area include: crayfish (Camaridae);
nymphal and larval stages of dragonflies (Odonata), caddisflies (Trichoptera); and snails
(Gastopoda).
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. These impacts cannot be quantified at this time since the
specifications of the project are not yet known.
Plant communities found along the proposed study area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife. Project construction may reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby
diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge,
thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife
further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate
areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase
of competition for the remaining resources.
3.5 Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work
would affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be
temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Alterations in the aquatic community will result from the installation of bridges or
temporary arched culverts. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization of water and scouring of stream channels. Water movement through
these structures becomes concentrated and direct, thereby increasing the flow velocity.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation
at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation,
which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and
deposit- feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by
excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
Turbidity reduces light penetration thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alterations of the stream bank enhances the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic
communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the
formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of
vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations
of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--waters of the United States, and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of
the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate
and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill
materials into waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must
follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an
area to be considered a wetland.
One large wetland occurs within the study area, the floodplain swamp of Doctor's Creek.
Hydrophytic vegetation in this area includes bald cypress, swamp black gum, sweet bay,
bayberry (Myrica heterophylla), titi, red bay, leucothoe and cane. The soil is a sandy loam,
generally saturated to the surface and has a Munsell color notation of 10YR 2/1 or 3/1 (Appendix
I). This wetland has a wetland value score of 65 (NCDENR 1995) (Appendix II).
Juridictional surface waters present within the study area include Doctor's Creek. A
detailed description of Doctor's Creek is presented in Section 3.2.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to surface waters were derived from aerial photographs of the study
area, onto which surface water locations were mapped in the field. The study area width and
length were used in the calculations. Usually, project construction does not require the use of the
entire study area, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
12
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 2. Anticipated impacts to surface waters based on study area:
Site Impacts within Study Area
Doctor's Creek 600 linear ft 0 82 linear m)
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using a Global Positioning System
(GPS). Estimated impacts to wetlands were calculated using GPS and the study area width and
length. Usually, project construction does not require the use of the entire study area, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to wetlands based on the study area:
Site Impacts within Study Area DWQ Rating
Wetland A 29.4 ac 01.6 ha) 65
4.1.3 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 from the USACE is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 may be required if
temporary construction including cofferdams, access and dewatering are required for this project.
The USACE will determine the final permit requirements.
A Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit may be required for this project since
Pender County is a coastal county.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification (#3361) is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation)
must be considered sequentially.
13
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Impacts to Waters of the United
States will likely not be avoided due to their close proximity to the existing bridge.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-
way (ROW) widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the
entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of
direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on
exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control. Impacts to Waters of the United States can be minimized by replacing the
bridge on the existing location with an off-site detour on SR 1307/1165 to the east or SR
1304/1157 to the west.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site. It is anticipated that no compensatory mitigation will be
required for this project although final determination rests with the USACE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review, by the
USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
14
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29,
2003, the USFWS lists the following federally-protected species for Pender and Duplin Counties
(Table 4). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species for Pender and Duplin Counties.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS COUNTY
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E Pender
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A) Pender &
Duplin
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T Pender
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T Pender
Carex lutea golden sedge E Pender
Charadrius melodus piping plover T Pender
Lysimachia asperulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Pender
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E Pender &
Duplin
Schtivalbea americana American chaffseed E Pender
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue E Pender
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E Pender
"E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future thought all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance.
Acipenser brevirostrum (shortnose sturgeon) Endangered
Family: Acipenseridae
Federally listed: March 11, 1967
The shortnose sturgeon lives in Atlantic Seaboard rivers from southern Canada to
northeastern Florida. This fish is usually less than 3 feet (1 m) long. It is dark above and light
15
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
below. It has a wide mouth pointed downward beneath a short snout. Along the sides of it body
are five rows of sharp, pointed plates which provide protection from predators.
The shortnose sturgeon inhabits the lower sections of larger rivers and coastal waters
along the Atlantic coast. It may spend most of the year in brackish or salt water and move into
fresh water only to spawn.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Habitats in the form of large rivers and coastal waters do not occur within the study area.
Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural heritage Program database of threatened
and endangered species revealed no known populations of shortnose sturgeon within 1 mile (1.6
km) of the study area. However, the biological conclusion for the shortnose sturgeon will be
determined by an NCDOT biologist.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened
Family: Alligatoridae
Federally listed: March 11, 1967
The American alligator lives throughout the Southeastern United States, including
Alabama, Arkansas, North and South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas. The American alligator primarily lives in freshwater swamps and
marshes, but can also be found in rivers and lakes.
Adult males can reach to 13 to 14.5 feet (4 to 4.5 m) in length with females reaching
lengths of 10 feet (3 m). The snout is characteristically broad and when the mouth is closed, the
edge of the upper jaw overlaps teeth in the lower jaw. Juveniles are essentially smaller versions
of their parents, although they do have bright yellow cross-bands. Older alligators gradually lose
the yellow banding and turn olive brown and black.
The study area does contain habitat for the American alligator, however, no nests were
found during the field investigations and no surveys are required since the species is threatened
due to similarity of appearance. It is likely that American alligators occur in the swamp but will
move out of the area during construction activities and repopulate the area once the construction
is complete. Biological conclusions are not required for species listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally listed: April 7, 1993
Historically, the seabeach amaranth was found in 31 counties in nine states from
Massachusetts to South Carolina. Now there are only 55 populations within three states, New
16
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
York and the Carolinas. Of these, 34 were found in Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Carteret, Onslow,
Pender, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant with fleshy, pink-red or reddish stems and
small rounded leaves, 0.5 to 1 inch (1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (cm)) in diameter. This plant initially
forms a small unbranched sprig, but soon begins to branch into a clump reaching up to a foot in
diameter with 5 to 20 branches. The shiny, spinach-green colored leaves are clustered towards
the tip of the stem and have a small notch at the rounded tip. The flowers and fruits are not
easily seen and borne on clusters along the stems. Flowering begins as early as June in the
Carolinas and extends until late fall or early winter. Seed production beings in July or August
and continues until winter. The flowering and fruiting period, however, may vary as a result of
weather events.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coast barrier beaches, where its primary
habitat is overwashed flats at accreting ends of islands, lower foredunes, and upper strands of
noneroding beaches. Occasionally, this plant can be found in other places, including sound-side
beaches, blowouts in foredunes, interdunal areas, and on sand and shell material used for beach
replenishment or dredge spoil. Seabeach amaranth does not occur on well-vegetated sites
because of its intolerance of competition. The species requires areas functioning in a relatively
natural and dynamic nature.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of barrier beaches and dunes do not occur within the study area.
Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program database of threatened
and endangered species revealed no known populations of seabeach amaranth within 1 mile (1.6
km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on seabeach
amaranth.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) Threatened
Family: Chelouidae
Federally listed: July 28,1978
In the United States, loggerhead sea turtles can be found along the southeastern coast
with significant nesting sites in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Loggerheads are capable of living in diverse environments, such as in brackish waters or coastal
lagoons and river mouths. It has been observed that they favor steeply sloped beaches with
gradually sloping offshore approaches. Loggerhead hatchlings and juveniles are often associated
with sea fronts (areas where ocean currents converge), downwellings, and eddies, where floating
open ocean animals gather. During the winter, the loggerhead sea turtles remain dormant, buried
in the mud at the bottom of sounds, bays and estuaries.
Adult loggerhead sea turtles have a reddish-brown carapace measuring about 36 inches
(92 cm). The dorsal and lateral head scales and dorsal scales on the extremities are also reddish-
brown, but with varying light yellow margins. The neck, shoulders and limb bases, which are
17
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
not scaled, are dull brown above and medium yellow laterally and ventrally. The plastron is also
medium yellow. Loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings lack the reddish tinge varying from light to
dark brown. Both pairs of appendages are dark brown above with distinct white margins. The
plastron and other ventral surfaces are dull yellowish tan.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of coastal lagoons, brackish water or river mouths do not occur within
the study area. Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program
database of threatened and endangered species revealed no known populations of loggerhead sea
turtle within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have
"No Effect" on the loggerhead sea turtle.
Carex lutea (golden sedge) Endangered
Family: Cyperaceae
Federally listed: January 23, 2002
Golden sedge has been found in only 2 counties in North Carolina, Onslow and Pender
counties. The species has only been found in coastal savannas that are underlain by calcareous,
or chalk, deposits.
Golden sedge grows in small to large clumps. The 3 to 7 grass-like leaves range from 2
to 11 inches (5 to 27 cm) long and 0.7 to 1.5 inches (1.7 to 3.8 cm) wide and are found mostly at
the base of the plant. Flower spikes develop in early and mid-April and fruits mature by mid-
May, with most or all fruits fallen by late June. Leaves and naked flowering stems persist
through the summer.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of savannas did not occur within the study area. Additionally, a 14
January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program database of threatened and endangered
species revealed no known populations of golden sedge within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the golden sedge.
Charadrius melodirs (piping plover) Threatened
Family: Charadriidae
Federally listed: January 10, 1986
Piping plovers breed only in North America in three geographic regions: the Atlantic
Coast, the Northern Great Plains, and the Great Lakes. In North Carolina, around 50 pairs of
nesting populations were counted (1995). Four pairs of piping plovers were found nesting at
Holden Beach in southern North Carolina in 1993. These birds have been observed as early as
the end of February in Virginia. There are several North Carolina sites where plovers have been
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
observed during migration, including Oregon Inlet, Ocracoke Inlet/Portsmouth Flats, and New
Drum Inlet. Sightings of the piping plover away from the outer beaches are rare.
Piping plovers are small shorebirds approximately 7 inches (18 cm) long with a 15 inch
(38 cm) wingspand. They have a sand-colored plumage on their backs and crown, white
underparts, and a black upper tail with a white edge. Breeding birds have a single black
breastband (which is often incomplete), a black bar across the forehead, bright orange legs and
bill, and a black tip on the bill. During winter, the birds lose the black bands, the legs fade to pale
yellow, and the bill becomes mostly black.
Piping plover nests are found above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sandflats at the
ends of sand spits and barrier islands, gently sloped foredunes, sparsely vegetated dunes, blowout
areas behind primary dunes and washover areas cut into or between dunes. They may also nest
where dredge material has been dumped. The nesting sites are shallow scraped depressions
residing in fine grained sand to mixtures of sand, pebbles, shells or cobble. Piping plovers will
primarily nest in areas with little or no vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of coastal beaches, sandflats and dunes do not occur within the study
area. Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
threatened and endangered species revealed no known populations of piping plovers within 1
mile (1.6 km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on
piping plovers.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Family: Primulaceae
Federally listed: June 12, 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of the
Carolinas. There are currently 35 populations in North Carolina and one in South Carolina. The
populations in North Carolina are in the following counties: Burnswick (8 populations); Pender
(1 population); Bladen (1 population); Carteret (8 populations); Scotland (3 populations);
Cumberland (5 populations); Onslow (3 populations); Hoke (5 populations); and Pamlico (1
population). Most of the populations are small, both in area covered and in the number of stems.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb with erect stem 11 to 23 inches
(30 to 60 cm) tall. The leaves are sessile in whorls of 3 to 4 and are broadest at the base. The
leaves encircle the stem at intervals beneath the showy yellow flowers. The upper surface of the
leaves is deep yellow-green or blue-green and lustrous. The leaf margins are entire. Flowering
occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through October. This species
is easily distinguished from the one other similar southeastern species of Lysimachia, Lysimachia
loomisii Torrey, by its broader, glandular leaves and much larger flowers.
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
This plant generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on wet, peaty, poorly drained
soil). This species has also been found on deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origin). Rough-leaved
loosestrife is associated with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine
flatwoods, pine savanna, streamhead pocosin, and sandhill seep. Plants have also been found in
disturbed sites such as roadside depressions, power line rights-of-way and firebreaks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitats in the form of ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins
or Carolina bays with abundant sunlight are not found within the study area. The study area has
been severely degraded by agricultural development and fire suppression. Additionally, a 14
January 2D03 review of the Natural Heritage Program database of threatened and endangered
species revealed no known populations of rough-leaf loosestrife within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the
study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on rough-leaf loosestrife.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Federally listed: October 13,1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker historically occurred from East Texas and Oklahoma, to
Florida, and North to New Jersey. The present distribution is similar except the species is not
found in Missouri, Maryland and New Jersey. The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in open
stands of pine with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) are the
most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands that
are primarily hardwoods or that have dense hardwood understories are avoided.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is 7 to 8 inches (18 to 20 cm) long with a wing span of 13
to 15 inches (35 to 38 cm). Black and white horizontal stripes are on its back, and its checks
and underparts are white. Its flanks are black streaked. The cap and stripe on the side of the
neck and throat are black. The male has a small red spot on each side of the black cap. After the
first post fledgling molt, fledgling males have a red crown patch. Most often these birds are
found in groups ranging from three up to as many as seven other birds.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of old growth stands of southern pine lacking a thick understory are
not present within the study area. No RCW trees were found and no active clusters are located
within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) from the study area. Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the
Natural Heritage Program database of threatened and endangered species revealed no known
populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
20
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Schwalbea muericana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally listed: September 29, 1992
The American chaffseed is primarily a coastal plain species of the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. Fifty-one populations are known, including one in New Jersey, one in North Carolina
(Fort Bragg, Cumberland and Hoke Counties), 43 in South Carolina, four in Georgia, and two in
Florida. American chaffseed is found in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils. It is found in habitats described as pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas,
ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge
systems. This plant appears to be shade intolerant and therefore occurs in areas maintained in an
open to partially open condition. American chaffseed is dependent on fire, mowing, or
fluctuating water tables to maintain the partially open forest conditions it requires.
The American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems (or stems
branched only at the base) growing to a height of 12 to 24 inches (30 to 60 cm). The leaves are
alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic and the upper leaves are narrow bracts. They have large,
purplish-yellow tubular flowers borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, bracts
and form a many-flowered, spike-like raceme. The fruit is a narrow capsule enclosed in a sac-
like structure. Flowering occurs from April to June. The fruits mature from early summer. This
species is distinguished by its unbranched stem alternate leaves, largest at the base; the two-
lipped flowers, long and pale yellow with purple near the open end; hairy stems and leaves; and
posterior sepal and two braclets subtending each flower. The dark brown senescing stems are
quite distinctive for identification after flowering.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitats in the form of fire-maintained pine flatwoods, savannas, ecotonal areas between
peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils do not occur within the study area. The study area has been
heavily impacted by fire suppression, agricultural development and timber harvesting.
Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program database of threatened
and endangered species revealed no known populations of American chaffseed within 1 mile (1.6
km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on American
chaffseed.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally listed: February 7,1989
Only eleven populations of Cooley's meadowrue remain in Pender, Onslow, Brunswick
and Columbus Counties in North Carolina. In Onslow and Pender Counties, the six sites of
Cooley's meadowrue are all within a 6.5 km radius. The three sites in Columbus County are
within a 2.5 mi (4 km) radius, and the two sites of Cooley's meadowrue in Brunswick County
are within a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius.
21
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall perennial herb, 39 to 78 inches (1 to 2 m), which grows
from an underground rhizome. The slender stems stand erect in sunny locations; in the shade,
they are lax and may trail along the ground or lean on other plants. The leaflets are 1 inch (2 cm)
long, narrow and with entire margins. Both basal and stem leaves are present and usually
grouped in threes. All parts of the plant are glabrous (smooth). Male and female flowers are on
separate plants. The flowers lack petals, and the sepals are small and drop off early. The sepals
on the male plants are pale yellow to white. There are numerous stamen, and the filaments are
light lavender. The female plants have green sepals, and their small, spindle-shaped carpels
develop into narrowly ellipsoid, one-seeded fruits (achenes). Flowering occurs in mid-to late
June with fruits maturing in August or September and remaining on the plant into October.
The Cooley's meadowrue is found in moist wet bogs and savannahs often at the border of
intermittent drainages or swamp forests. It grows along fireplow lines, roadside ditches,
woodland clearings, and powerline rights-of-way. This species needs some type of disturbance
to sustain its open habitat. Tulip poplar growing with cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar has
been the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of moist wet bogs and savannahs on the border of intermittent
drainages and swamp forests does not exist in the study area. The study area has been severely
degraded by agricultural development and fire suppression. Additionally, a 14 January 2003
review of the Natural Heritage Program database of threatened and endangered species revealed
no known populations of Cooley's meadowrue within one-half mile of the study area.
Consequently, the.proposed project will have "No Effect" on Cooley's meadowrue.
Tricheclus manatus (West Indian manatee) Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Federally listed: March 11, 1967
The United States' West Indian manatee is confined during the winter to the coastal
waters of Florida and to springs and warm water outfalls reaching up to southeast Georgia. They
have been known to migrate as far north as coastal Virginia and west to Louisiana during the
summer months. Manatees are found in both salt and fresh water with depths ranging from 5
feet (1.5 m) to less than 20 feet (6 m). They have been observed in canals, rivers, estuarine
habitats and saltwater bays. When water temperatures fall below 21 to 22 degrees Centigrade,
the manatees migrate south to Florida or other cluster together in warm springs or industrial
outfalls. In warmer months, manatees are found in areas with an adequate food supply, water
depth and near fresh water.
The West Indian manatee is a large, 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 m), long fusiform-shaped
mammal that is gray or brown, wrinkled, sparsely haired, and rubber-like. They have modified
paddle-like forelimbs, no hindlimbs and a horizontally flattened tail. They have stiff whiskers on
their muzzles. Manatees, which are primarily herbivorous, spend about five hours a day feeding
on aquatic vegetation.
22
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EF+,CT
Habitat in the form of canals, rivers, estuarine habitats and saltwater bays do no exisit
within the study area. Additionally, a 14 January 2003 review of the Natural Heritage Program
database of threatened and endangered species revealed no known populations of West Indian
manatees within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have
"No Effect" on the West Indian Manatee.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 26 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Pender and Duplin Counties as
of 29 January 2003. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient
information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, Significantly Rare, or
Special Concern by the NCNHP list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern, species state status, and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for information purposes
as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. As of 14 January 2003, review of the NCNHP database of the rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
study area.
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
23
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 5. Federal Snecies of Concern for Pender and DUnlin Counties.
Scientific Name Common name NC Status Habitat
Acrotis buchholzi Buchholz's dart moth SR No
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sc No
Amniodramus henslowii susurrans Henslow's sparrow SR No
Ainorpha georgiana var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E No
Aristida simpliciflora Chapman's three-awn SR-T No
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T No
Corynorhinus rafinesquii** Rafinesque's big-eared bat T Yes
Dionaea muscipula Venus' flytrap SR-L, SC No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E Yes
Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea Venus flytrap cutworm moth SR No
Heterodon sinus* southern hognose snake SC Yes
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel E Yes
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint T Yes
Myotis austroriparius southeastern myotis SC Yes
Noturus sp. 1 "broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Plantago sparsiflora pineland plantain E No
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish W3 Yes
Rana capito captio Carolina gopher frog T No
Rhynchospora thornei Thorne's beaksedge E No
Sagittaria graminea var. weatherbiana grassleaf arrowhead SR-T Yes
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna spring-flowering goldenrod SR-L No
Solidago villosicarpa coastal goldenrod SR-L No
Spartiniphaga carterae Carter's spartiniphaga SR No
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel W1 No
Trillium pusillun: var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and
the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern
plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The
species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"-L"-Range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states.
"-T"-Rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total).
"W 1 "--A watch Category 1 species is a species rare but relatively secure.
"W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species that is poorly known; perhaps needs listing in upcoming years.
"*"--Historic record (last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
"**"--Obscure record (the date and/or location of observation is uncertain).
(Amoroso and Finnegan, 2002; LeGrand, Hall and Finnegan, 2001)
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
6.0 REFERENCES
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Amoroso, Jame L., and J.T. Finnegan. 2002. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina". Raleigh: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EnviroMapper website
(http://maps.epa.gov/enviromanner).
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., S. P. Hall and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B. S., et al. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
National Geographic. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Third Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. "Recovery Plan
for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle". National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington,
D.C.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2002. Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS) website
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html)
NCDENR-DWQ. 2000a. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2000b. North Carolina's Draft 2000 303(d) list.
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/mtu/files/303d/NC2kLIST.pdf)
NCDENR. 1995. "Guidance for rating the values of wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
Version". North Carolina Department of Environment and natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Rohde, F.C., et al. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
State of North Carolina. 1984. Wallace West Quadrangle [7.5 minute Topographic map].
Reston: US Geological Service. 1 sheet.
26
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Sweeney, Dr. James M., editor. 2000. Threatened and endangered species in forests of North
Carolina. International Paper Company.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey for
Pender County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1954. Soil Survey for
Duplin County, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. "Waccamaw Silverside Recovery Plan". Atlanta, GA 24
PP.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. "Cooley's Meadowrue Recovery Plan". U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. "American Chaffseed (Schwalbea Americana) Recovery
Plan". Hadley, Massachusetts. 62 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. "Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan". Atlanta,
GA. 32 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. "Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast
Population, Revised Recovery Plan". Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. "Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus
pumilius) Rafinesque". Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. "Technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the
red-cockaded woodpecker (Piciodes borealis)". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Technical/Agency Draft, Florida Manatee Recovery
Plan, (Trichechus n:anatus latirostris), Third Revision". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta,
Georgia. 138 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Division of Endangered Species website.
(http ://endangered. fivs. gov)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. North Carolina Ecological Services website (http://nc-
es.fws.gov)
Weakley, A.S. 2000. "Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia". Working Draft May 15, 2000.
Association for Biodiversity Information/The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill.
27
NCDOT MARCH 2003
TIP B-4224
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
28
NCDOT MARCH 2003
APPENDIX I:
WETLAND DATA SHEETS
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: -T-T i) PrtieJ MI J, ZZ`I JDate: I -13 -03
Applicant/Owner: Gt»T County: E _
Investigator: Dr. J.H. Carter III State: A
JCA,Inc., Environmental Consultants, P.O. Box 891, Southern Pines, N.C. 28388 [phone]
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? QV?7s) No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: A-6
(if needed, explain on reverse) W ET LA M 1
VEGETATION
1.
2.

3. 1_iu t
WAaryi
bor5
u?
r?ri ?
? I l
4. (a,.T iA,
, I AVI,1 i,n iAyld 2-
5. Ur+ s
nA+>?A 1r1'n : h?1 iP14-iyr ? I
6. rj ' 2
7. Sr+ t1c ?? ar ?Pyts+? , ?? F+
$. ? r r? I ? .?. 5n i rt d5 ? 3
1 = tree (overstory') 2= sapling (midstory) 3= shrub
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) I bb'b
Remarks:
f{`1QtZOPH`I71L VE6F-TA-"bf4 PV-ESEMT
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):.
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
I Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water.
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
C (Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
19.
110.
111.
112.
113.
t 114.
-115.
116.
rstory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
(in.)
(in.)
q- (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in
Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAt Io MDEOL06-1 PP-EStNT
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: TT P ar6;c4t?l, 1). R 229 _ jDate: - I ?) - a 3
Applicant/Owner: KI CbOT County: - -
Investigator: Dr. J.H. Carter III I State: ? t N A
JCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, P.O. Box 891, SouthernPines, N.C. 28388(910)695-1043
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) es No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? es J.Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse) n U PL A N
_t _ . r , , _I f i
a I C It U.K-j / r 51UL.ji-U l.rl'.C
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. )S toc'A')- 1 SAG 19.
2. C- 10.
3. FALt 11.
4. I<,+ V11 L 12.
5. a n is - 13.
6. e.` -t r rcti n i r j c{ L- 114.
7, 115.
8. 116.
1= tree (overstory) 2= sapling (midstory) 3= shrub (understory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(exclud.ingFAC-) (06%
Remarks:
HIDP-0144TIC, VE&ETATIO?%I Pt?ESEWr
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):. Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicator:
Acrial Photographs 1 _ Inundated
Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available 1 _ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in

= Upper 12 inches
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) J _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test

d S
il
e
i Other (Explain in Remarks)
:
pth to Saturate
o
D (
n.)
Remarks:
WETLAMI H11 ptZOL06y A13SEKT
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: TIP R r- 1 K D 13-92N Date: I' 13 b-3
Applicant/Owner: L T JCountyC?I KJ
Investigator: Dr. J.H. Carter III IState:LA
JCA,Inc., Environmental Consultants, P.O. Box 891, Southern Pines, N.C. 28388 [phone]
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes o J Transect ID: ?-_ ?-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o I Plot ID: NL)JK ?L-
(if needed, explain on reverse) oul')A w n{
WETLAN O ;A
VEUL TA1'MiN
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 1 FAC 9. Anlift in12rid +CCi-dr F?
2. ie?Ann rum i ra i -AC 110.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13. -ffiul?CA 1-1 -2, FA/'JA1 6. - 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
1 = tree ( verstory) 2= s piing (midstory) 3= shrub (understory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
Perccnt of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) Utz l0
Remarks:
144WOPWITIC VE(SETAT 101A PCESENT
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):. Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ( Primary Indicator:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
J Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available J Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
J Oxidized Root Channels in
Upper 12 inches
oo? Depth of Surface Water: (in.) J _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: T (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
J _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks:
LucrLAN0 1-l`ID1-oLC&` PLESEMT
APPENDIX II:
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEETS
WETLAN D A
Project name -1
County Pk MD
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
® on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series M&y-v r v SD. 15
F61l'ings}an -f?Ak Sandy loam
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
® predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
? ditched or channelized
® total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
[vj?forested/natural vegetation __LO 216
[2"agriculture, urban/suburban 35 %
F2} pervious surface <5 %
Dominant vegetation
Flooding and wetness
(1) bvio&e ran } ApAYd
(2) Ngssai biOore_
(3) of Y
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
?c tntermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland type (select one)*
® Bottomkand hardwood forest
? Headwater forest
® Swamp forest CreR.k edct.
? wet flat
? Pocosin
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
-4 22y Nearest road S ?_ 13 bS
_ Wetland area - acres Wetland width feet
1 ?aTIE &P-CH Date I - lav-03
? Pine savanna
? Freshwater marsh
? Estuarine fringe forest
? Ephemeral wetland
? Carolina Bay
? Bog forest
? Bog/fen
? Seep
? Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
iveight
R Water storage 3 x 4.00 = 12-
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization Z x 4.00 = g Mettand Score
T Pollutant removals y x 5.00 = ZD /
I Wildlife habitat_ x 200 =
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 = LO
G Recrcation/Education 2 x 1.00 = Z
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
c
`"?;.1 ? ? ?'}iL•u v rsFCu :??A1 ?• T 4?? ?? ,Ir ?.,,?hmer '>.,I?' ! f? ? ?=I??'?,",
' ? Faye ?-..,es? t? y'x.Afi. ? 3 n -. yf/?'°' ??4a1„ 'I r ?ti",t.. ).S /J 1, ?.a y-:d
{
wf 2 E h'??y (t, L ( g ?a} G y iC ?.
s -4 _ ?+ r'1?,? P I ti '?j: t?R? •.t{{J ??. 4, 7.. ? 1iP.+?
??G?! /r ;+ j.? 4 ?.. ?• yr„ f?= rt i
.3. f: 7 ?•?'} } r ? ?,. .a''? p t .i,L. < p. s+v l / 4 ?r..
.+?? yi. r ? k F ;?,+v'i? ?' -. rit .rtr_q--, Rtt '? '+ 4:?f"`_
!' til ttj t'rx_:I s ?Irs„r- e? Y? Fa }-rrM H.;( ? .,
4iJ_ t tJ.1? iit s •?.. \
.'is` }w ..?t4 t -,JA Al is II 'ei
Cl rto? L i F"d' 1?_ Vrv?rw ?t?!t? -•'?, ?'"' ? _ vl
??? ?Q t i `?' I c? ? e??i>< y?t?S' rr t ? t? 3?' ? `•"" .-: ? 'r
tx:
.{3 t I nd a It
24
1,10 1-
lffm!arn
4? 7aas +? ke
ffin7i 5'. f,r,?,-?f fll • til.} r_w rJ?ti`'.-.
4 •yI
a i j :? ? G+ en ac j ti t. Lat Sri y k4 ..
Toe-
• ?J S - ??? ?.. s I+Si ?:'.?[aY:?Tut 4.trf .. ?.. ` r ?.-. s'? ? r ? ire
x'r., Tuns hk ec [ ?+'...
PROJECT,
VICINITY
MAPS
. ?r
4tr•?IS-:
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN/ PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 33560.1.1 (B-4224)
REPLACE BRIDGE 63 OVER
DOCTORS CREEK ALONG
SR1155 AND SR 1305
SHEET OF 04/10/05
NORTH CAROLINA
1 I ? I
f?
i'
°€15siI
Y? ,
r
a,
w ? x ?, 11

I®T TO
T 0 P 0 G IRAPHIC
MAIDS
SCALE
Jc
co
a
lz
NC DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN/PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 33568.1.1 (B-4224)
REPLACE BRIDGE sa 63 OVER
DOCTORS CREEK ALONG
SR1155 AND SR 1305
SHEET ";, OF l 04/ 10/ 05
23-JUN-2005 07:59
r:\hydreullcs\permtt\b4224_hyd_perm1
sh?•?]4+r•,}ir rAlr.{1Y2174'i88
y reuus rm: _,yd-p-it4}
she
U1 C) D Ln
O 1111
I?
IN
Iw
I-
Iw
O?
I1
Im
1o
0
IN
IN
N
N
N
7
N
W
I
q !Il ?'. ii
M ?
z$
H11 +M Ifff
`? I n t x µ J
-? j
--- ----------
J p? of
it I
171 1 1A
bol imrnm 4
:7a-
? ?,, m a
...
.1q71 Ag Q m
3.a ti il 30
RRR111 ??
r.4 Q \:: Ml? X 1 +
n
M• it M 9 ff A 4 M .i I[ y! Y? v 8? • ??R Z T l9
wL?
• zS a t, g o <? 4
:.
. I« I? n c? .-.
:D r-
...
r T? e m
r N Ln m
m c0
:r
i s.a S i.+ r8 v
}` g T It 08 ) m r p
# 8 as 1
3 4 " O
µ = m
- O oz
o
` n M it 01. ~? -O
oo ; aig?N X20 m o m y 11 t
ZM D
tip n n
-•? 0-1
U)o
k a --l Z
Ola`o 3 N n
-44 11 11 1 1 G + g -i
8 ?y # II ?,
4, C O
1 rt' s Z
aP+
µ I y 1 C? 1^ .. ..
M
tiOD? I :k ..
uqu?. I -? C1 M
p cc).r
?? f; I rm ti? '? r m ?(R fV
I
ITT
µ = I k?
T1111 11
m
ITII. 11 (A
p?
23-JUN-2005 Q7159
r:\hydrauhcs ermtt\b4 24_hyd_parml
nstin. -HY212,,
she raw :cs arm: 44_ y-perm:W
p
0

IN
W
F'n
la
V
co
0
N
O
N
N
N
y
N
W
144,
N
A.
.'?• ..... ..

k
? ? ?? i, ? µ ? I I 1 1 1 I 1
_'\i?•? '' 1 I 1 1 I I 1
k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i
• ? ?' ? I '? ? 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 µ l 1 1 1 1 1 I
Z?Z
er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
?„'; 1 Q ? 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
* 1 -? 1 I, I I I I 1 I 1 1 1
? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- - `; ? ? µ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
°o
- ?? 1 1 I I 1 I 1 u
'; ? ? k 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
i t II-:4 µ 1 1 I 1 I 1 1
1 I 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
03
y`_ ?? E ,'? µ I l k 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
r kt
µ '?,I 1? Z I I I 1 I I 1
I ? ? YYY ?? 1 1 I I 1 1 1
1 IP'
( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q y I µ 1 1 I I I I 1
- ---- -- ----- - -----
y 2 k 03
µl 1 1 1 1 1 1
- p ?i I _ D ???444
------------
IF pp[ ` _
In I: i
8 1 --?
t _
?',?tl II gy
'I?11 i µ k m mB
2
r- /1
'4 I; ..t \ .'a k
.? ;I rr 1
-v t
.«(\ 7 it ? i # 7 ? ? ?? _
i
t `? s
sir f
Mm wag h''? t rn j
L K.
•c 3 r ?? fin" - - _ ,.,,,
?j
?kw
NK 1+
If ? /
u?uu?nuwu a} ?' m
A - 1 4? [V 1I ? ? t. T 1
I? A1?? 1 h 17t w "1'? -? o Q
;r. r r
f co
,. cn m
r1A m
" fI C O
----- ---- ------
IV D
y `" ?° µ = m rL
`I ? . u??• O OZ
• // q O(
AlH
:OZ
, ? It I,•' ? ? ?i le A i-? ? f?l OC
I? 1 F. m
I { f G7 (n 0
,., $ a I 1 J i • J E8 o
oiao ON n
,a,'." ? ? ?sC o
' I Z
~.
U k t`
fr 1 ? ?
I?c?„ rr ??' J a
~ ''? p,
It. i
All-

1)

5 O N
C) 0 C)
a M N a

75 (n
C a ¢ z a

U)
C U d ?' 3 0
z
c
x
x w '"
A
O
O
o0
Z
Z a
W Z M
M

o
J
A
w
a too
U
Z
F
C4
x

U) E? a ro O O O O

CL of U)
C) 0

co C)
C? C) C) 0

LU <L

C:) C3 CD 0

c O co
ro?
cu
E r O O N

Q CL
cr,
Cr,
co
z

Q
W
J
U

0
+
O
+
O
+
Cl)
+
m 0
_
L
l
-
W
C
G e

s
s
z
a
E
m c
rn

Z ? 0

? aE Z o 0 0 0
U L
E
Q WU
-
a
?_ c
m
d' C C U C
w
Q ??, c: ro roE
.- L E 0 0 0 0

a
w
U
a U)
d 0 0 0 0
l
l > C V
E>
? E co O
0
o O
0
0 O
0
0 O
0
0
?

? ? C V O O O O

? Z5 E o 0 0 0
U a

? c

O O O O

W ? N
G .?
?' ? O o 0 0
Z ,
ro? m °o °o °o °o
g ? s .2-,
U o 0 0 0
c
U
?
7 d 2 'N

? O
? c
?
o
o
°
o

o
> c CU

0

0

0

0 v

0
Z 0 0 0 0 0
g w

W N
c ?
V
0
0
0
0

-
ro
E O
0
O
O
O
_
? lL y O O O O

C co
O ?
r
(D
co

O LL j
> O O O O O
a
a?
? ?`
O
U
d
L
?
m

^ O ? O J O Qom' O -?
_ C
p
O? J J J J
`0 E
? V
h O r
N O ?
N ? n
N ?
v (h + + O + O +
r t? r ? r 0 r r
N

J
? O r 1¢-

0
u
w
H
0
o,
?o

i?
0
w
C.?
0
n?
W

nom`
W
O
4
v
0
V
V
O
1
U y
Q ?
O A
U
p
V
u
GY
O
v
?? II
a
? c
U c
v
u
V
N
d
L..,
U
ti
y
i e
U
f. w
N Q ti
IT
+•1 v
C1 ?
v
ova
w
J J J
0 o V
O
Ui In LO
O O O
V
C) O
N N
O N
N 7
Ql
Y U
U
U
Z Z Z
c0

CC) co N
m

co V

N
N
U
Z Z Z
° U
O
D fG
=

~ _
2
J Co

0
o
L ? C
U f4 j
?
m 7 ? N
> O
Lc)
O
N r)
st
N (/)
C
G N
N
C ?
'G
>
L
d
N N
N
O Q

Q1 ? L_

N a
O O
\` %
W
0

GC
bo .
e
2-JUN-2005 15:16
:\roadway\pro``\b4224-rdy-tsh.dgn
.ckey AT RD223183
SC'OT' CJP'I": (3201484
?I'1111? Il?ll??f/IE??l,
CH
`n
N O
N II II 11 11 II II
II _ _
C O W O O ?` O
rO ? O O
O
N -p
O rn
0 Z z
r V
Z O
? C g
O
v ? -fin
,v
A
2 O O
--11 a --WW11
A
II II II
14 N
0 O 0
O N W
? v ?
3
N N H
9
W
rr ?
OD 47 _. ?
?Z
G1
O
Z
n
A -p
L40
7?
W
?m
rTl
?O
Q
W
O
m`
Q
z
O
1
1
gz
-'C
C
z
nn
F
03
O
c
Z
D
N
• B--4224
?q Ao ..

N

r ?-

o k?
C _J

n a-
I
a
0
k
0
c
z
N
m
?z
Z

o A
?
H w 'U
v
S `
r m

i
i
?rn
TZ
_
m
r?

COI
J
OUP
N
couvr
}

v?
m
? $

g r z
? o
i
G' v
I 00
f !
0
/ O [p
1
? .
/ v

ro
?ro
Y
`z
N
M
0
r_
O
C0J O
Q
n
y q
h ?
f
d
t7 4
a .
l /
a
a
. N

9?
4_le_lc.dgn
O
O
O
y
O
tri

co
s
• D Z r 2. r Z A r z cO co
_
W
N• m N x
Y • m
•? N D N UN NN ((??
V D 0. m Z
-1 N .-• ?
J •?
D U
? 0. rl
m H d _
. m D
?
N
m m O u • m O VI R
1 W A 3

m
z'°•NmD • : 2 NW mD? • z
m'cml
m?
• mm N O :
NO
% J.?.. N
'
pp
D
co
2
o W +mz
: W
NN t (D 2
• m 0 N
D
M
m . p ,
pp
N
J •
• 2? • V C? Of W .
? -
I W U

ifl N
W

F ~ H
rn ? ?
IZ)
O ? ? x
N ? ? Tl p V1
J N U W '
O
S
m on
wmmm??
r r r r
J 01 N W
W W W?T lJ W?T• 2
(UD JO. (U711 ' 9
j U W .O D ' -/
O i f0 ?T • _
J ? W O
COI O. D J '
t)t O (Jp a y '
00 6100 '
NN1? nNI?1 nNN1 NNI.? rNrV.? '
m 01 (D [0m ? m
W W W W N
a
omodm?
:m
' m
a
J a N OD + ;
SN?yS N
p W O) p] -/
T f.W. ? t n I n ?
O W O O? Z
m mm'
m (] C1
r r '
o
w±ainv?m
.0 N
r r
n
O
z
--4
DD
O
r
O
D
D
E3
N
0
'-l
yo ? ?o r
o , b o
t ?C) ba
b y 0
yo
t4
r 0 oc
rr ?y
?N who ? d
0C4
0xb tl ?
d 11
ty)? to
O 1 Q
O
? e
W
A
?+q••pp
?H
d??
zt
0
0 S>
w
r?

r
M; 7!
•CJ'y

Y
a
11

11
A
V*i
Al
£8 GVN
Qla`J ON

h
A
?p?? ,,??uu N- 005 1I5:16
Lei \Hoa w?+??Pr 84224_rdy_typ.dgn

-v ?
O
M
rn O

0 O
°
s
Z 5 o O ,
n o
O
Z
°
?
o
H I
9
N ?
O V
X
c
C:
Z O
-i O
X O ? w
w ?
V
a
v
O
N
s
0
S
0
CL
O
h
n
01,
(O
co
L
?P
?O

- f?
i
"? ?>pIo
r 1n P
m ?
O
Z i
m
O
N
I `
I
O

D
r
M
Q
O
Z
O
m A 5 I

+ m

P A
Z

m m
i
vz

m
.
o
•° v
i
P m to m 0 al z A.
wZ
O m ++
i 0 ++
n
- O
C
Y
+
-1 V
i O _
c
h O 0
t
O 00 Z 00
00 fn
m o o Z 0 0
00 ?n
p to
^?

co
cl -4 -4
C 00 n
o OO
0 -4 -i
0? c 00
Z
w 0 p
o
o
A P
In Z
0 Ll T? Z
0
r. 0 P
r + + N
+
-1-i r r V?
O
+

o
° o
n .
c
Np p p
s w + o0
ao
0 +
OO O
9A 0 0 N
00
c -? - m _L
n
m
x
?" -lwav
x
m -i a >19
-19 -4?D fl
x -i 7v 2: 1O
p
>
x >
°
?
° o
W -
i x"0av v
a z
v
a a 0
-? = rz• z.
mz•
m•
Z +
'
r
m
p m<Y <v v
?'< Gaiv

° m
Sal

?o

=;.
N

mo
m r
m Z
mm G)X y
mm D"
= > M. K
r ?-
m v<Di a m
;u
" m
D D
93
0
.{ xNm ma xzzmN n
' M
y a

C, *w
?
° iy D

=
m

I
n =

v
ta
a
?-
'i a)--I cn r-

<
M
m A
W
W O
_f
0
wr-O O
r
0 O
-4 r0 r
M0 Z
m W W0
1 y0 WO aW0 0
-1 • 77 9 2 • 77
=.a m m ?vm mm
m zm mm Mmm W-?
m 9 9 9 m
rn

l!f 41
w
.ya 01
Wa H CO
Z(1!C
OW
m
> O G
y 9
..
m n
l 0. n
> 0 00 -
a
. r
°
0 -
lam l
C
?o M. a c =, m m
=
A o 2
s -
1va
i m ov 0
o
m xmm m ymc
p 09 p9w DA
r
C, 0 W
i at < m xm
° m
vm m -
?
m1
D W
0]
910'0 n
m
V
m _4m ;!m
a
w M:cl Ol OW
W
m -
im m ODD m
m O
' ?D
r mw D

yD
O
A
0
Rri=NS
0
v
r R ? ri
uy?
A
r
N
W
A
-11
V1
OM
V
W
C?
N hi3
O ``n rr
N
N
u
A
dy_psh4.dgn
O a ?'
+ W??a
tz g
I?
I I I
At k
I I ?
Na1rb7 "Jujs
Fx ?\:
IITtl CN .9b w I a k
I? I z I ? k
I° u
p n I ) ?
la
O r
N m O k 1; N61 ?
?; N m I$ I m
N n I
,. m A
-' o
v
m i I k k V
-rn
P?x.,o I I irsat rw,vf _ - A
r
] AYIN[5 ? I
vkn I .? a
p ? ?c
a;mr
??N O
F-rn,
-?O to ?$ I -} N• NUn
Illll f! U
0 I Q ii O.IA
rn? r^ ? h I \ N?--4?i µ
4?'n I w-
VIM
+ rn
---- --- --- ------- --
I v.rn Iy ..) m + ?...
p?
FF ? ? it T a k y?A
=m At ?
v' 1 AN S9 4 y9? IL
I ? 7,Sb,vs•ee++
. I s4? .96oa ?
PINC -BL- 5 23+86.99
to t?I nl Z z ?b r Y -L- 1664.33 (14.3208' LT)
------------
x n,?a17j?? r? 1 a 2 aaa a
Rl? 4 D4 1?1 1rr?: T J a k O x k f
:.?,{C Z ? ? ? ? I ? ?? N Irma ? ?.??°\9,?• L. i Y P'*-•-„r
i 9 ?ti LL 9yd +
j (? M.6S.f0.99N ?p ?`5 4 n }- ? µ
n n i u k n r.. -$ (G?a k N 8 r z
to ?l V i? a (., (U ? ? ? o \ ??v ? + d
?ySV?$tO?WW?u' ?I / ?E g $m
E
N
Q o
IF.
k f W rn .0
HHill
Wv s $ ?all z b,? ?
?" w 2y y} n r; o x o Q µ
fQ fX_? ? ? ? fpY1V?y? ti
nod Q? a ?' rn S i ona k
r(, mZ A I a Dm
o a" + i n
T N 0 O C ?J
n~ O ~ cy I .I n fl_m Y O
D?pm W i rn ;M°IN
y W ?O
n?Zy I V ?.. Y f M.
-p ? I I k ? N
EEL Co
N I n r
r v
?w N 1
11 ?$ I v l k ? ?l^
awl
N
k
M
m--
m?tiOD? I '

r III1114?
I I

I k

? C\
I. n
1
I
J
µ

C ?V,????
]
1 I
`
J
+
''
j
x0
:?
tri
Ir
-L01 I I
?? ? ? A

I I
W
-BL- S. 30+55.4&PINC
z z
X k I ? L- 23+31.20 (14.7887'L7) A

m
?z
A

.0

p ?:.? 3 p ?pp5
cA?
UL S?Q o ?,po
?t?•v? Z??,t?tP?F?
0?? SOS
S??OS P3
731`.,:.
,--,EQ0Svstem"-).%
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. David Timpy
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1890
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4224, Replace Bridge 63 over Doctor's Creek, Duplin and Pender Counties;
Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030007); Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) and
Southern Outer Coastal Plain (SOCP) Eco-Regions
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impacts associated with the above
referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request letter, the impacts associated with
this project are as follows:
Riverine Wetland: 0.32 acre
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation up to a 2:1
ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is
permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of Agreement between the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, N. C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, and N. C. Department of
Transportation (Tri-Party MOA), signed on July 22, 2003. Riverine wetland mitigation assets available
include, but are not limited to, Haws Run and Grove Creek mitigation sites.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4224
a,` l:7
t _
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceeD.net
&0S stem .
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4224, Bridge 63 over the Doctor's Creek, Duplin and Pender Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated September 9, 2005, the impacts are located in CU
03030007 of the Cape Fear River Basin in the Southern Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) and Southern
Outer Coastal Plain (SOCP) Eco-Regions, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.32 acre
The subject project is not 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. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation
to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
t?
Wil ' D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. David Timpy, USACE-Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4224
NCDEN
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-041
6 / www.nceep.net

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 9, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
o?
sF,o ?c?
o I
??N? qNp h'qT s?Q O
sr FR OS
RB?
cy
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: EEP Request for Mitigation for the Replacement of Bridge No. 63 over
Doctor's Creek in Duplin and Pender County, State Project No. 8.2271501,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1305(2), TIP No. B-4224, WBS Element
3358 Division 3
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the above-referenced project in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 63 over Doctor's Creek in Duplin and Pender
County. The bridge is considered an inadequate structure receiving a sufficiency rating of
36 out of 100 by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit.
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest
extent possible as described in the permit application. When submitted, a copy of the
permit application can be found at http://www.ncdot.orwdoh/preconstruct/pe/neu/
permit.html. Unavoidable impacts requiring compensatory mitigation will be offset by the
EEP program.
The project lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in the Cape Fear River Basin
(Hydrologic Catalog Unit 03030007, Subbasin 03-06-22).
Wetland Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation: Wetland impacts total 0.32 acre of fill in
riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands. We hereby request compensatory mitigation for
0.32 acre of riverine wetland impacts be provided by the EEP.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Please send a letter of confirmation to David Timpy (USACE Coordinator) at the USACE
Wilmington Regulatory Office, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402. Mr.
Timpy's fax number is 910-251-4025.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) requires a formal letter from EEP
indicating that the EEP is willing and able to provide compensatory mitigation requested
for this project. Please send a letter of confirmation to John Hennessy (NCDWQ
Coordinator) at the NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Certification Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Mr. Hennessy's fax number is 919-733-6893.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance
letter for this NCDOT project. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Mr. Brett Feulner at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
1,4r. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Mr. David Tempy, USACE
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File-B-4224
^' d,.a STYE ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 1, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Joel A. Johnson
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road), Pender County, at the Duplin
County line Replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Doctors Creek,
State Project 8.2271501, F. A. Project BRZ-1305(2) B-4224
A scoping meeting for the Subject Bridge was held at Century Center's Roadway
Design Conference Room on August 7, 2003.
iiiv ?v1ivw1u w IG wcic III aLLG11ua11%,c.
Bill Goodwin PDEA Ray McIntyre Program Development
Joel Johnson PDEA Mack Bailey Structure Design
Ann Steedley PDEA / PICS Andre Davenport Structure Design
Steve Gurganus PDEA / PICS Tim Gardiner PDEA / PICS
Joe Futrell Traffic Control Tinnette Hales Right of Way
Wayne Cody Bridge Maintenance Jim Harris Rail Division
Eugene Tarascio Geotechnical Parks Icenhour Location Surveys
Ron Allen Roadway Jeanie Tyson Roadway
David Webb Hydraulics Jay Twisdale Hydraulics
Sarah McBride Historic Preservation Office Karen Reynolds Traffic Engineerin
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document Apri12004
Right of Way: April 2005
Construction: Apri 12006
Bridge No. 63 was built in 1966. It is 121 feet long, 24.1 feet clear deck width, and 14
feet over the bed of the creek. The structure is posted 20 tons Single Vehicle and 23 tons
Truck tractor semi-trailer. The sufficiency rating is 36.3 and it has 11 years of estimated
remaining useful life.
Traffic Information SR 1305 (Doctors Creek Road) is a paved, Rural Local Route with
no posted speed limit. Current ADT: 800 VPD, Projected 2025 ADT: 1400 VPD, 2%
Duals, I% TTST. Pender County Schools stated that no school buses cross this bridge.
Accidents Two accidents were recorded in a check of a recent three-year period. Both
involved speeding and at least one was a DWI. They were not on the bridge.
Possible Offsite Detour: would utilize SR 1001 Pender County (Willard Road), SR 1307
Pender County (Rockfish Road), SR 1165 Duplin County, NC 41 Duplin County,
SR 1156 Duplin County, SR 1155 Duplin County (Shaw Road). There would be 9 miles
additional travel.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Pender County Emergency Services stated closure of the bridge will not
significantly effect fire department or EMS operations in that portion of the county.
The Wildlife Resource Commission recommends replacing this bridge with a
bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
The Division of Coastal Management Green light project.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service General comments only.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends geotechnical evaluation be made.
The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service stated this project is located in a
river basin that is likely to support NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources including
the threatened shortnose sturgeon.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has offered written
comments indicating there are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. If the replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely
that significant archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is
recommended. If, however, the replacement is a new alignment, an evaluation must be
made to determine the effects of the replacement upon archaeological resources.
A search of their files indicates no structures of historical or architectural importance
located within the planning area.
Division 3 has offered written comments recommending an offsite detour as
indicated above and replace bridge at existing location.
The Natural Resources Technical Report states the project may impact one
jurisdictional surface water and one jurisdictional wetland area. Permits likely required
for this project are a Section 404 NWP 23 along with their corresponding Section 401
Water Quality Certifications. Permits possibly required include a Section 404 NWP 33
and a CAMA Permit. Impacts to federally protected species are unresolved pending
determination for the shortnose sturgeon by NCDOT biologist. No High Quality Water
Resources exist in the study area. NCDOT should explore the option of lengthening the
bridge and removing any existing causeway that is currently in the wetland for mitigation
for any impacts that may occur from this project.
The Location and Surveys Unit states that there is no evidence of any
underground telephone lines or water or sewer lines. Utility density is very light. An off-
site detour may be an impact to local farmers.
The Geotechnical Unit states based on a site visit and a records search, there are
no environmental/geotechnical concerns that would present significant construction
problems.
The Hydraulics Unit recommended replacing Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145
feet in length at the same location as the existing structure. The new bridge should have
the same low steel and bridge deck elevation as that of the existing bridge. No bridge
deck drains will be allowed to discharge directly into Doctors Creek. If, however, the off-
site detour is determined to be impracticable, an on-site detour will be necessary. The
temporary detour structure will require an 80-foot bridge placed to the east (downstream)
of the existing bridge. Strictly from a hydraulic point of view, the detour grade of the
stream crossing should be the same as that of the existing structure.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
A rural local route with between 400 and 1500 vehicles per day and with a statutory speed
limit of 55 mph should have a minimum of 28 feet clear deck width including a 22-foot
travelway and 3-foot offsets.
Alternate 1
Replace Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145 feet in length, at the same location as the
existing structure. The new bridge should have a low steel and deck elevation
approximately the same as that of the existing bridge. The length of an off-site detour
would be approximately 9.5 miles.
Alternate 2
Replace Bridge No. 63 with a bridge of 145 feet in length, at the same location as the
existing structure. The new bridge should have a low steel and deck elevation
approximately the same as that of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained during
construction by placing a one lane temporary detour bridge of 80 feet in length
downstream of the existing bridge.
NEXT STEPS
Preliminary Design & Cost Estimate: Ron Allen of Roadway Design has indicated that
he will provide preliminary design and cost estimate information by December 2003.
Right of Way Cost Estimate: PDEA will pursue a R/W estimate once the preliminary
design and cost estimates are received.
Permit Class Permit Number
NEW ( 1 199-05
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA p
Department of Environment and Natural Resources X51
C , and
Coastal Resources Commission of .
?.
?Nnc NN. ?n?
ermtt 9N?STpTrk4>
?
for RK4?4©RyNc
h
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to N.C. Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Authorizing development in Pender County at Doctor's Creek, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1305
/ SR 1155 (B-4224) as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/3/05
including the attached one (1) V2-size plan drawing dated 6/23/05 and three (3) revised'/z- size cross section drawings dated 11/7/05 .
This permit, issued on 12/21/05 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Rridge No. 10 Replacement (TIP No. II-4224)
1) In order to protect anadromous fish in Doctor's Creek, no in-water work shall be conducted from
February 15th to June 30th of any year without prior approval of the NC Division of Coastal
Management (DCM), in consultation with the NC Wildlife, Resources Commission (WRC).
2) The permittee shall implement NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage,
except as modified in Condition No. 1 of this permit.
3) The NCDOT document "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal" (final
9/20/99) shall be followed during demolition and construction activities.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuin,
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
No Expiration Date, pursuant to GS 136-44.7B
In issuing this permit. the State of North Carolina agrees
that your pl-01 t is consistent \v ith the North Carolina Coastal
Mann ,ement Prosram.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.

Charles S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Si?(Tnature of Permittee
N.C. Department of,Transportation _ Permit # 199-05
y 3 Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL `CONDITIONS
4) All materials and debris associated with the removal and/or construction of the existing and/or new
bridge, roadway asphalt, existing.causeway, and associated materials shall be disposed of at an approved
upland site or shall be recycled in an environmentally appropriate manner provided appropriate
authorizations from any relevant state, federal, or local authorities are obtained.
5) Debris resulting from demolition of the existing bridge, including deck components, shall not enter
wetlands or waters of the State, even temporarily.
6) The bridge shall be constructed using top down construction methodologies.
7) Pilings from the existing bridge, as well as any remnant pilings from previous bridges, shall be removed
in their entirety. In the event that a piling breaks during removal and cannot be removed in its entirety,
the piling may.be cut off flush with the bed of the water body if prior approval is received from DCM.
8) Turbidity curtains shall be used to isolate all work areas from Doctor's Creek, including pile or
casement installation, placement of riprap, excavation or filling. The turbidity curtains shall be installed
parallel to the banks on each side of the stream. The turbidity curtains shall extend past the construction
limits and attach to the silt fences containing the work site. The turbidity curtains shall not I'ully encircle
the work area or extend across Doctor's Creek. The turbidity curtains shall be properly maintained and
retained in the water until construction is complete and all of the work area contained by the turbidity
curtains has been stabilized by vegetation or other means. The turbidity curtains shall be removed when
turbidity within the curtains reaches ambient levels.
9) The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated
wetlands are not authorized.
10) All excavated materials shall be confined above normal high water level and landward of regularly or
irregularly flooded wetlands behind adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spillover of
solids into any wetlands or surrounding waters.
11) No excavated or fill material shall be placed at any time in any vegetated wetlands or surrounding
waters outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the work plan drawing(s).
12) The fill material shall be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace quantities.
13) No excavation shall take place at any time in any vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters outside of
the alignment of the fill areas indicated on the workplan drawing(s).
14) Placement of riprap shall be limited to the areas as depicted on the attached work plan drawings. The
riprap material shall be free from loose dirt or any pollutant. The riprap material shall consist of clean
rock or masonry materials, such as but not limited to, granite, marl, or broken concrete.
15) Live concrete shall not be allowed to contact waters of the State or water that will enter waters of the
State.
k
N.C. Department of Transportation
Permit # 199-05
Page 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL: CONDITIONS G..,
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
The permittee shall follow "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" and shall
also implement sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources.
'16).
17) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to
ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property (e.g. silt fence,
diversion swales or berms, etc.).
18) This project shall conform to all requirements of the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and NC
DOT's Memorandum of Agreement with the Division of Land Resources.
19) In order to protect water quality, runoff from construction shall not visibly increase the amount of
suspended sediments in adjacent waters.
MitiEation
NOTE: In accordance with the letter of September 20, 200.5 from the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) to NCDOT, the EEP will provide compensatory mitigation consisting of 0.32 acres of
riverine wetlands in Cataloging Unit CU 03030007 of the Cape Fear River Basin for unavoidable
impacts to 0.32 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands by this project. In accordance with
Section X.A. of the 7/22/03 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NCDOT, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), construction of the mitigation site(s) to compensate for the wetland impacts
of this project will be completed within one year of permit issuance.
General
20) Any relocation of utility lines that is not already depicted on the attached work plan drawings, or
described within the attached permit application, shall require approval by DCM, either under the
authority of this permit, or by the utility company obtaining separate authorization.
21) If it is determined that additional permanent and/or temporary impacts will occur that are not shown on
the attached permit drawings, additional authorization from DCM shall be required.
22) This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional permits. approvals or authorizations that
may be required.
23) The N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) authorized the proposed project under General Water
Quality Certification Number 3403 (DWQ Project No. 052002), on 1112105. Any violation of the
Certification approved by the DWQ shall be considered a violation of this CAMA permit.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned COE Action ID No. 200300882 to the project as a
Nationwide Permit Number 23.