20050134 Ver 1_Complete File_20050125

a?%Vt.I
050134
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 24, 2005
J@@1g0y@y
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Field Office JAN 2 5 ?005
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
1MMAND R, WATER QUALITy
BRANf,H
ATTENTION: Mr. David L. Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 150 over Little
Coharie Creek on SR 1006, Sampson County. Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1006 (15),
State Project No. 8.2281401, TIP Project No. B-4268.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 150
over Little Coharie Creek on SR 1006 in Sampson County. The contract will be implemented as a Division
Purchase Order Contract (POC) project. The existing 7 span, 121.1 ft timber bridge with 24 ft of clear
roadway will be replaced with a longer bridge along the existing alignment. The proposed bridge will be a
3 span, 147.25-ft prestressed concrete cored slab bridge with 33 ft of clear roadway. Please find enclosed
three copies of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) document, hydrological report, permit
drawing and half-size plan sheets.
The structure will include two -12 ft travel lanes with 4.5-ft offsets. Approach work will consist
of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 530 feet to the west and
approximately 500 feet to the east of the existing bridge. The roadway approaches and bridge grades will
approximately match existing elevations therefore there will be no reduction in navigational clearance.
Guardrail will be installed where warranted and as depicted on the plan sheet. Traffic will be detoured
along surrounding roads during construction.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
This project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin
030619). The proposed bridge replacement is located over the Little Coharie Creek (DWQ Index No. 18-
68-1-17) Class CSw. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the wetlands for this project on October
9, 2001. Construction of the proposed project will result in 0.001 acres (62 sq. ft.) of permanent fill in
riverine wetlands for the placement of rip rap at Site 1 (Sta. 9+62 to Sta. 9+97 LT). At the Division's
request, a 48" X 60 ft CMP with headwalls will be placed at Sta. 8+00 to serve as an equalizer pipe. This
pipe will be installed within the existing fill section and therefore no additional impacts will occur. There
are no stream impacts on this project. Bridge No. 150 is being constructed using top construction methods
to avoid and minimize impact and therefore there will be no temporary impacts. Rip rap slope protection
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
around the end bents is being proposed at a 2:1 slope to further minimize impacts. No permanent or
temporary utility impacts are proposed with this project.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of timber
bents and caps. The Department will take every precautionary measure necessary to ensure that no
components will be dropped into waters of the United States. The bridge will be removed using top down
methods and NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.001 acres (62-sq. ft.) of coastal plain
small stream swamp (Blackwater subtype), as identified in the Natural Systems report (December 2001), in
the Cape Fear River Basin within USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (subbasin 030619) will be offset with
onsite mitigation. The Department is proposing to provide this onsite mitigation by installing a 48"
equalizer pipe at Sta. 8+00 to provide hydrological conveyance within the fill section of the existing
causeway.
NATURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists three federally
protected species for Sampson County: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). A Natural Resources Technical
Report and Survey has been completed for this project and a determination of "No Effect" for the listed
species is recommended. In a comment letter dated May 22, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concurred with this recommendation and stated that they believed Section 7 of the Act had been satisfied. ,
ANADROMOUS FISH
Anadromous fish species have not been documented as occurring in the project area. However the project
resides in the Coastal Plain physiographic province and anadromous fish have been documented in the
extreme southern portion of Sampson County, therefore NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish will be utilized to ensure that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous
fish. In consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Department has
committed to an in-water construction moratorium between April I" - June 30' for sunfish spawning.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservations Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 296 CFR Part 800, this project has
been reviewed and cleared for effects on historical and archeological resources (see attachments).
REGULATORY APPROVAL
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore we do not anticipate requesting
an individual permit but propose to proceed under Nationwide 23 as authorized by a Nationwide Permit (67
Flt 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this project. The
NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the Water Quality Certification. Therefore, in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Section 0.500(a), we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for review.
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mason Herndon
Division 3 DEO
cc:
w/attachment
Ms. Nikki Thomson, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Office Use Only: •?+ Form Version May 2002
®5O 1 34
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: H Allen Pope P E Division 3 Engineer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington. N.C. 28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (910) 251- 5727
E-mail Address;
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mason Herndon
Company Affiliation: Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
124 Division Dr.
Wilmington N.C.-28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (910),251- 5727
E-mail Address: mherndonadot state nc us
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No 150 over Little Coharie Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4272
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Sampson Nearest Town: Salemburg
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge is located on SR 1006,
gpproximately 0.4 mi W of SR 1434,
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.1136839° N78.5225119 0 W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little Coharie Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps .)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area surrounding the bridge is residential , powerline
utility corridor and hardwood bottom swamp
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:_
The proposed project is to replace the existing 121 ft timber bridge with a 147 ft prestressed
cored slab bridge Standard bridge construction equipment (crane and backhoel will be
used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:_ The existing bridge is in poor condition and has
has a 321 sufficiency rating and requires replacement
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Riverine wetlands impacts will
be 0.001 acres for placement of rip rap
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland.Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
9 + 62 - 9 + 97 LT fill/rip rap 0.001 Yes adjacent small stream swamp

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

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

Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres
(if Name of applicable) Waterbody Type of Waterbody
lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

s11 av navatinn dre.daina_
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts tncmae, oul ao FI.,L MULL— L- 1-9
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Minimization was inco orated in o the desi b the use of a lon er brid e. BMP's
for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridle Demolition and Removal will be implemented
Top down construction & 2.1 slopes on rip rap at end bents Equalizer pipe added in causeway.
An i water moratorium fr m A ril 1 to June 30 will also be im lemented.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as,streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to.jurisdictional resources to the
greatest extent possible as described above The remaining` unavoidable impacts to 0.001
acres (62 sq_ft) of coastal plain small stream swamp (blackwater sub type) in Hydrological
Unit 03030006 will be offset with onsite mitigation by installing a 48" eauilizer pipe in the
causeway at Sta 8+00 -
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http•//h2o.enr.state. nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes Z No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes El No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify N/A )?
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
Miti
ation
(square feet g
1 3
2 1.5
Total
+ Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near nanK or cnanne., c.uuc L UAMIlUa
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
/- zy- &5-
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
i
( f
•j ;7. - (14701,
`-- 1 \ (1bI Mill
1h cein
i
847
' 1001 t J -'
cem , ` /79 , ;? C.
-Cem td55 )?
Orange
Cem !! r7a
___.?_ J.-?..•.-.....- Cam- "l _ ? • ?. ' ... .. . t ?f _ . , ..... ,?. -... _ . r r,.7 _ .- -_ _ ^ i , i -
1
CAT
Cem
13366p? G ^ `1 --
Ha11s Sore ?r.r .• j ©f?.7? l r (. ?? D?
II J- ?..:, 13•x.
F +
S J .?, Cem
6 . 7
_ 1 .._
)COm
134 Cem
i % Cem
Y'? `???/ ? ? •!. r ? \ 'I Ill `? ?
Y.
JJJ
?andpits
f
Name: SALEMBURG Location: 035.1136616° N 078.5225792° W
Date: 1/22/2005 Caption: Bridge 150 Sampson County
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet 8-4268
1997,
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FO
A.
B
C
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
B-4268
8.2281401
BRSTP-1006(15)
OCT 14 2004
ft40'OFNAtU? EN YS
vrROW
Pro'e? ct Description: (Include project scope and location and refer to the attached
project location map.)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over Little
Coharie Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be replaced with a 144-foot
(43.9-m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-
foot (3.6-m) lanes with a minimum of 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 530
feet (161.5 m) to the west and approximately 500 feet (152.4 m) to the east of the
existing bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. A design exception
will be required for horizontal sight distance. Traffic will be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction. Please reference Figure 1.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 150 has a sufficiency rating of 32.1 out of a possible 100. The deck
and substructure of this 51-year old bridge are in poor condition. Therefore, the
bridge is structurally deficient and needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
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
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
O3 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
d? 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.
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.
2
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information: (Include Environmental Commitments and Permits
Required.)
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 750,000
Right of Way $ 33,400
Total $ 783-,4UU-
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1400 vpd
Year 2025 - 2800 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Detour Length:
5.3 miles (8.5 km)
Proposed Typical Roadway Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes and 8-foot
(2.4-m) grassed shoulders. The shoulder width will be increased to 11 feet (3.3 m) where
guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 km/h) A design exception for horizontal sight distance will be required.
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Three Construction Office concurs in the recommendation to replace
Bridge No. 150 in approximately the same location as the existing bridge while detouring
traffic along surrounding roads.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 150 contains seven spans totaling 120 feet (36.6 m) in length. The bridge
is composed of a reinforced concrete deck with timber joists. The substructure is
composed of timber bents, end bents and piles. There is no fill associated with the
demolition of Bridge No. 150.
Perferred Alternative Construction Method
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that NC DOT use top-down removal of
the existing structure and top-down construction of the proposed structure to avoid and
minimize impacts to the wetlands that run adjacent to the existing roadway. NC DOT
coordinated this request with the Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, and Structure
Design Unit to ensure that this method of bridge construction was financial feasible and
constructible. A project commitment has been added to ensure further investigation into
the feasibility of this method of construction during the final design phase.
Alternates Eliminated from Further Study
The "no build" alternate is not practical or feasible. Continued deterioration of the
existing bridge would result in its closure to traffic. This is not acceptable due to the
amount of traffic that Bridge No. 150 serves.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not practical. The existing substructure is
composed of timber abutments and bents, with one bent requiring a crutch cap.
The use of an on-site detour is not environmentally or financially prudent for
maintaining traffic. The project has wetlands located in the northwest and
southwest quadrants and an on-site detour would increase the impacts to these
wetlands. These impacts would be considered permanent and would require
mitigation. There is a good, 5.3-mile (8.5-km) off-site detour available.
Therefore, the use of an on-site detour for this project was eliminated from further
study.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any ?
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely ?
impacted by proposed construction activities? X

(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X

(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States ?
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X

(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage ?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X

PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ?
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?

regulatory floodway? X
5
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or

low-income population? ?
X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ?
X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the

bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? ?
X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? ? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
6
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Discussion regarding a unfavorable responses in art E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
3. Menhinick (1991) does not document anadromous fish as occurring in the upper
reaches of Little Coharie Creek, but has documented anadromous fish as
occurring in the extreme southern portion of Sampson County. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has indicated that the Little Coharie
Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish. Therefore, NCWRC has requested that
an instream moratorium from April 1 to June 15 for this project.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4268
State Project No. 8.2281401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(15)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location. Attach location map.)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over Little
Coharie Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be replaced with a 144-foot
(43.9-m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-
foot (3.6-m) lanes with a minimum of 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 530
feet (161.5 m) to the west and approximately 500 feet (152.4 m) to the east of the
existing bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. A design exception
will be required for horizontal sight distance. Traffic will be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction. Please reference Figure 1.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
U' .;7 L G
Date
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
14
D Ate P
Planning & Environmental
Date Project Planning
Planning & Envi
For Type II(B) projects only:

Branch
Date John F.-Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
'"Federal Highway Administration
Project Commitments
Replacement of Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 Over Little Coharie Creek
Sampson County
F. A. Project No. BRSTP-1006(15)
State Project No. 8.2281401
T.I.P. No. B-4268
Roadway Design Unit, Bridge Maintenance Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division
4, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Top-down construction is the preferred method for the removal of the existing bridge and
the construction of the proposed bridge. Every effort will be made to adhere to this
preferred method during the final design phase of the project. If this method cannot be
used for any reason, additional coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
be required.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit,
Structure Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
The wetland impacts will continue to be monitored throughout the final design process.
If the wetland impacts exceed 0.1 acre, than a mitigation plan must be completed for
permitting purposes. Any shift in the proposed horizontal alignment will necessitate the
need to re-evaluate the proposed alternate for this project. All attempts to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts will be further refined in the final design phase.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadside Environmental Unit,
Division 4
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish will be utilized to ensure
that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish. Anadromous fish
species have not been documented as occuring in the project study area. However, the
project is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province and anadromous fish have
been documented in the extreme southern portion of Sampson County. In accordance
with this finding, the NCVWRC has requested that an in-stream moratorium be observed
from April I to June 15.
PDEA
June 9, 2003
5+ud;ad peA bogy tfto?c
S A M P S O

Y. ??.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SAMPSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 150 ON SR 1006
OVER LITTLE COHARIE CREEK
B-4268
I Figure I I
e ?' SLA7= o
y r?
P
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
i`vlarch 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over Little Cohaire Creek,
B-4268,'Sampson County, ER 02-8575

Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that am archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of historical
or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
A house, located on north side of SR 1006, east of bridge, eligibility for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places needs to be evaluated.
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 vour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Marv pope burr, NCDOT
- ------- - -Location flailing, Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Ralcigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Ccntcr. Raleigh 2%699-461 7 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Ralcigh . NC -11) 13 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh 2769()-4h 13 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning! 515 N Blount St. Ralcigh. NC 4t) I \ Mail Scrvicc Ccntcr. Ralcigh 2769()--161 X [phone] •715-4801
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE SECTION
North Carolina Department of Transportation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen B. Capps, PE
FROM: Richard Silverman
SUBJECT: B-4268, Sampson County
DATE: May 5, 2003
CC: Project File
Attached is the signed concurrence form which state that NCDOT and SHPO, agree that:
• There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's are of potential effects.
• There are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based on
the historical information available and the photographs of each property (including the bridge
itself), none is considered eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
necessary.
¦ There are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Since there are no historical properties affected by the proposed project, compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act is complete. Please notify us in writing if the scope of this project
changes. fychange in scope may necessitate a new survey of the APE.
.,uu. ua flsu rrllwaI -I UUU(1.)) 1"' it b-4ZOL) Loury...ampson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over the Little Coharie Creek
On April 1, 2003, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the l
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as Jy/cb rt, #$F-)
are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
r
F-1 There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
epresentative, NCDOT Date
I q4 r- 03
FHWA, for the Division A tor, or other Federal Agency Date
z i o3
Represe ve, HPO Date
c
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200101169
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
County: Sampson
Property Authorized Agent:
Owner: Jeff Harbour, PWS
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Environmental Services, INC
Project Development & Environmental Analysis 524 New Hope Road
1548 Mail Service Center / Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548 V/
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): TIP Project No. B.
4268, existing bridge on SR 1006 over Little Coharie Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Onsite field inspection of selected wetland sites.
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
? There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed
The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictions
determination on your property.
M/ On October 9 2001 , the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as determined by the NCDOI
and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project. A select number of wetland sites were inspected for th(
proposed project and all were found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes tha
this jurisdictional delineation can be relied on for planning purposes and impact assessment.
? The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have been explained to you
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a penoc
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
? There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements o
section 4104 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our publishec
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of thi
notification.
? The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coasta
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of thi
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If yol
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Mr. Davy
Timpy at 910-251-4634.
Project Manager Signature
Date January 2, 2002 Expiration Date January 2, 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLANI
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.
I / m C\1
? w II
z ?l
00
°
°°
00
M/ Q ° X
I W
41 m 00
C3 LLJ
? m // ~ ~ Q H
rr? -1 I a_
O
U-/ I W Q
03 _ / H LL-
+ U (T) ' rr,
0-) Q Cpl / F-- I W
? O f? ? / i I----I J
Q
I- n-? ALL-
n - -? ,I? II J
Q6-) / v
a Q
11.1 U? Q H
ww
m
m Q
LL
I mw
I ? H
W
Q
I
? I I

?uoiv,
o o °
Z vi a
N
H
U Mz
omCL °
6UE
?
H

' tic m

E=

0

0
o

W

?Q .5 3
c° o o °

0 0 0 °

Z
a?i -
N C
CN
r O O °
.
-
U)
V

Q
?=
c
EEL= M
O
O o
3:
a? o
0

; aN
g
O. C ? V
O
O

? N
c
O
O
0
i
i
? v
o
0
CL N
N

in CL

v W U

2
m
?
°
in co ?
x
? v 0

r o
o
f
°.'
$

O +
CO
? N
t
rn
'?-Z e- N
Cm
cc
E
E
v/
v
C
E
CL
a
a
a
3
AMPSGIV
? A
up
R
E ? a
B-42
0 0
ms KI? x g ?I
Ly i ? Im 'Y
? or \ Q
A O K• ,
N
r"o
' " II O
K-
I I
KI
W a O r I? I r
O ? n ; m
O Z
n n^ " I I r
F
n
O O d A I
I y KI
n z n
L
I6'69f 9 *DjS9d W
K-
(A
^ F-
M
D
z
O
0
H- K-
K-
..\" CITTCF
?0Zq \
\ ?RFF \
K
w •a
id
6? `C

~O ?p W y Ol N d w N __?
n HZy D OTyy f Tmxm VoONA m:E OZA mA -4 A '1) HZ-?
m z O x O T 0 x 2 n H r n m S Z m y H X 2 no"
O Zm --/ Amm H ZO?Tm ynr Om r Dr 0 n MyD An ?m
_ yn a??o yazH mz xm ?m xN ,?zy om0
y S N m S m N N r N m A n 2 H O Z m N H N N Z Z m y T A m
m2x m mNnn Z AmOmz Do vv n Z H N OH AA m b
^ nH O 00 n my Z mAN mA ySD nD n y M 'V!-!
S E--IN O NyCC mONAy AOO OH Omy y na m?Lr ApZ
ayy yOAA •p n xm Ar N < ZA ('? rC A A DTy
co HmH T A m Ap ANADAN= H N m nm n pNmy H
O AZ O Cann p z<r-cnzn An yZ Az ny A yTnm myy
A Hn 3] npAA H f'Ir?yNN mr ?l mS n0 OC
C7m y r1 m D O n 00<
m Z yZHH O GlA HO ynr any ^ <A O z A ZAr? z
C Myy O nmZAH Hm -, SZZ H. Nm y 00 and HNO
x A m AOHH O HpmCI?T=Hm • ap0 KZ O S n m m r .. ANN z
m0 m Po Z Nm £'UD yfT7n m ?t VI y p n ?"' m m D AA OCOTp
m yn rr n DH,S Dm N O KN Z Z N DA
0 H
N Sm N OA m v m=rm NmM MH y m^ a0 ym y y N ?omv=nA
0
r vN o Npr v ^m crzo< x mA° ?,N Ym z z H ?y mnA
o Nxn ° > oA oTZpvo?vziz a^' y"" oz o o H ?mmnxnA
y Cr myy D . AO<fn C n n 'N OQo NO N^ N rpm wry Z
O 2 m m 0 0 s ^ O Z O N? N Z M O? N N O Mm m n m v n o O
z m Nzz N ym?v '"?Cmiy ?; Nrr- m= N? o m?Z mvNim -1
NA oNn D Za1HyAHZ ym nr nZ NUI y nHny m m
m CDy m yx<H OC Hx x?-.. Om O 00 x T?oOA
_? Amm N OO=ZrO ZC 2 Tm m ?O O ^ OfH+IH nAH
ym ATZ N A nZy r ° -t m D Z y --1 y TOn MHO
O 0Oy n ma`°An°xo? Y[ y 0 O ...? ° Z Z 3 Agm OAT
mm mNN m H HOmNCZ C m0 < p0 N N N = ym0^?.ZO7
m "Z ,np Nm m Znn>DHHn y nz Z OO M SZ-y M*4
fH a?o = Zrm" v N.n I m°ccnr
m m non xm
fczi m?T.?Ayomyv o< a r^ A om? m
Z z n Z N ° mz c
mM m y yr m n z v y H H n A n '
No v=
?° _?? NyzOm o Do z = m nZmm
T mzp myOr xpOH y Hz T ?.'? y m2fm?l fn]
nO A r N
z O C y m N x H y m ^ 2 p m Z C
c
mm• mmmom.o" n rzim?M r
m o x n y H A
A M Z Z m m0
O y ~
T
N N N y
y y y A
? vmvn
m• T
orvT
f EH
n A ? n
p yO m
mmn
ozOZ
uOwn
V loo
'a o
K- K m
t5 H
r m
T N
H N
?m
A H A
T'D K• m O
N n A A
D An V ?? K
^
o
r
m
m K.
r
?
faA

xxv
0
°

mN °
m
oom
z
?
O
L Z D O r y
N
'? ,• n°
C A inn
A on
yO ?D A

f!1 N
y O
W n
N
?O
C wn
x y
n
v
m
r
rN oo."6
+
A co
m
n
:
w z
O
a
to o
O

? Rl K-

y

nym
Cmi nm
H'
z x z ov n
A O `O
H H
vmi o n :70 -1 -,o m a o
N
M II II II II II N' ??
A
nv
Q
?
'
F
or°nm ?
?(U
n ;
m;`o CIO
(31

K-
K- K-
V '
K•
onv/
ANN CNbp Oy, cr
OmmH O t> / / \
Ao
O L
n
_
O
NO ? / n1t?? N (in 0
?zl Z n V r ?..? N
N - o p? A
r m-4p?
nOZn
m

o
a

4
r m ? ?
o -1
NZ
ca en
? p
Q

U
Y
p 4 0
O O ? F
5° "
L

K ° n rm
??o x
Z m 'o O ow.
Zo
Z 'O
O H
?
m
?' O
'
to (n
© P '?
Ul
$

m
o

OOA
Ol HA
y' ??QQ •? "o
O? / ?S/ mD ^_ ? nv
r r
D
06 ` c
00"
O~ O=?Y
?y
a
mw?1 y=oy?
ati O
c

OOHS/
. I
I I
? I
I
00-bp T610d
K-
00-1-
"-00f 9
m o
Z y
0>
nm
° K- 90f L
? c
n
y
oz
K-
K•
OOf9
G?
r
A
o N
Y

m V) co
r
D? mV)

ALDz n

V) :c
m -r-+V (Il .I D tD
+
m''
o mwm 0U
-u
Lo
r N l
~
+ m
MATCH LINE 9+50
"' -L- 1O a w
mD Vx
0

r
, Ul
Ul
= -r
I r
=

mW
?
I N
I
mcn
!- -i
r
1 '
I I
? 1 CO -' ?
N
tO
+
0
0 I
O
W 0
co w
+
Ul
O

O

H

m 0
0
D
m D
x
u (-
N O +
o
- z U,
o
<

C
O
+
? o
C
m

Ul
O
w

DV)Z -I
V) --r D CD 0
O
V1DH?
C• r
m H
jOZ
rTm co V
r+0
+
+
W?f?r1
I O
t,
CnWV
'O
` -rI m
4-
0
O

O H -J.fl O
+ x + Ul
0 /i--- O co
O
W I
t " r- ,
D

O
11
i
-rr V) r
V) \
r
-{ H
m H 1
?7 r
-TI 1-4
?.
DV
W

a7 ?7 O•
H D
()'>7 1 O --
ON
?
l
Ul
w
i LO

V `

-1 ?
"< x - ?- - -
V
m?
LAJ
n N
?rrl
mm
zr
-I V
"H
F-
m
V)
m
X
Ul
+
H O
X O
m
xv +
m N U,
m
X r- -qrl 1
n c0 O W
O
X ?•
c'J
I-S O H W
O C7
C-) O
mV) co+°
-
W VI
o Z
°
r
r,i
--4
-Ti ?--. D O
WO
H W

n
I
7-LX O 0Q) co I +
M r 0
I U, I o
vl
N OW UWl
o
CC)
cu
r
ZE
mcn o D i N I'll) W r(
rri V)
•rD i r-+ r! C) O m
03
LAJ V I m cn m D 1-,
Ulu.
+ x -IO I
D !
-?Z
DO W, .
Ulu-.
--
OW -
+ I
?
(7
_ ?,
'D +

O
N
I Ul
Z7
V
+ N

-
N -
I.
n i O
WO CJl
Ul
O co I (7) D CTl
r \ I -- n I
= r
I
J r cn
r
D
I uj -
m
x
H
V1
H
z
0
V
O
C
Z
°
mVl --i m
r-IDZ
•II DV0
m
LAJ -L. m
.j + ? V
NOO-I
O O H
mn
X D
rHr'
V)
H n
H O
ZZ
0-4
V
0
r
Ia . v r- 70 Cn () -0 C,
° HOOF ;
4 H?1
- I H a I c: 0
- l h?
r _
n0Z(m)
m
Z?- men
a
? mm i
r
V l
d
n ;6 0 ? 0
ra,
R 0
no ?, U ?Nco
'o
i ?7
O a 'J
X M O N
N
Z P-
co

° Z
H n
a 170
Z
A
O -4
c?
m
(n

IL
°
J
rv
r
cn m o -4
b
t
U
C
O
0
U +d
O
Cb
O
O
Ul _
O
LO
+
0
0
lD
+
Ul
O
z 0 n n
nz ° o
c'") C7 Z
C7
m I
X
H I
Vl
H I
H I
Z I
c-? I
G7 I
M Vl -{m
o I r --•I D Z
C 1 •II Dm°
z
O I W+ V m
w
x
?l
o o
O H
I m n
I F- X D
I IHr
I Vl
H Q
I H O
Z
I O
I r
I
I
I
2 .tom V I
mco V
D
C7 C7 p I
O
K V) I
D -V m
rr-?° I
V)? I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MATCH LINE 9+50 -L-

Iv
O { { { {

l
oT-D x
?a ? p O
? D a?
mI N I? ID
°
ml lw °
- -- - -- -
- -- -- -- -- - -- -- I Y??
n i A
? Z9 l
? ?`
> z
, I I D s
E t
?
W
Ul
?l I I
I I
I I k H ^
sS

? ?,
_ I r f ? iiil ?
e
r
l
I? t

I

!
t

I i? GJ
w ?i
0 0
N I?
r ` 1 \` y y

1 (
0
,y
1 O `\
O
M' K
f7
`11 c3
/ Z7 N

_ ,? O O O O I `

O
1 k ` \1 M

v z+ O O
1
1
- - - `
?
`1

m
-
iv 1

o
\
H I M
W
_
1
I
w

I m
II I H I M
m

. 1\ k D ?
L ?

\
1
1
,n

o y I ?,

mo
t ? X Iii °c 1, O v 1 -o
I W
?
? 'n r ? I
uN I I ? I
II ' mN 0

t ,
mL
m
I I I I I ?
m ? I ??
II I II _ __
J abw,4
?- L -F- m
_ 70

F,
?
t ? I'
I r ? o t fT'. Z

\ O
' Ir
I inn ?/

s

? a r I

/

l
` H I M
r

V
v? o
n v
N
n ?
N `
I v

O
x
I ? t
? ?? c n f m 77
p m N y
rt o

?

? N

? n n

? -
Co
- to
-Ij o
0 777
t.li ?' ? t r
,j t}
? ? ?• `^
O ? I z7
? ? ? r
-1 In
- f
r
[ ?b b y b gg? ? ? x ?
? r y a a ?? { ?o
E S C] . ° m o n n
z CO
D
EE

K b
any I
?
L
'
o m
n n
n
44 }
4 ?' ? ? y
p 0 ? co r y
tiy Q? O * , 7t t? N
? ? ?? ? N 2 in Vl o Z
C+
? k
: C1
o
DE
Boo O
y I m;
oz oa? 2©D0 0
A

o r
2
in
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over
Little Coharie Creek in
Sampson County, North Carolina " \ -
C U c.v
(B-4268)
NCDOT Consultant Project No. 00-ES-12
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
J
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
December 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Qualifications ................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Definitions .................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3
2.1 Soils .............................................................................................................3
2.2 Water Resources ...........................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 7
3.1 Terrestrial .....................................................................................................7
3.2 Aquatic .........................................................................................................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................................11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ...........................................................................12
4.2 Permit Issues ................................................................................................14
4.3 Protected Species .........................................................................................15
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NPDES Permitted Dischargers .......................................................................6
a Table 2. Plant Communities ..................................................................................... 8
Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates. .1 1
Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters ..................................................13
Table 5. Federally Protected Species ........................................................................15
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) .................................................................17
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Location, Plant Communities, and Wetlands Maps
Appendix B. Data Forms and Field Notes

i

Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over Little Coharie Creek
In Sampson County, North Carolina
(B-4268)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
150 on State Road (SR) 1006 over Little Coharie Creek in Sampson County, North
Carolina. Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) was provided with a project study area
depicted on an aerial photograph and was asked to complete a Natural Resource Technical
Report in order to assess the existing environmental conditions of the identified project
VIA
study area. The study area for B-4268 is approximately 6.5 acres in size based on the
map provided by the NCDOT and is located approximately 6.5 miles north of Salemburg,
NC. Existing bridge information will be supplied by the NCDOT in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of existing natural resources in the
project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions
of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an
evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction; 3) a preliminary
assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 3) a preliminary determination
of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped project study
area and does not take into account final design or limits of construction.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources. The Salemburg, NC U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic map was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) mapping was also consulted to determine what potential wetland types may be
encountered in the field. The Soil Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina (USDA
1985), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:100) furnished by the NCDOT were also
used in the evaluation of the study area.
1
The aerial photo served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Water resource information for Little Coharie Creek was derived from the most recent
versions of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000), Basinwide
Assessment Report:Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999), and DWQ internet resources.
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current internet version of the USFWS list (March 22, 2001) of federal protected
species with ranges extending into Sampson County was reviewed prior to initiation of the
field investigation. In addition, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records
documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
was documented, and expected population distributions were determined through
observations of available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in Martof
et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994, and
Palmer and Braswell 1995.
Construction moratoria will be determined by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC).
1.4 Qualifications
J The field investigation associated with B-4268 was conducted on July 31, 2001 by ESI
staff. Jeff Harbour is the Project Manager for this Natural Resource Technical Report and
supervised the field investigation. Mr. Harbour has a B.S. in Marine Science and has more
than nine years of professional experience. Mr. Harbour is also a Professional Wetland
Scientist (No. 0001204) as certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists. Additional ESI
staff involved with the field investigation include Kevin Lapp, Eric Renninger, Lauren Cobb,
and Charles Kaufman. Mr. Lapp has a M.S. in Biology and more than three years of
professional experience. Mr. Renninger has a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science and
2
i
more than 2 years of professional experience. He also has been certified by DWQ in
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Procedures. Ms. Cobb has a B.S. in Natural
Resources and more than 2 years of professional experience. Mr. Kaufman has a B.S. in
Marine Biology and more than 1 year of professional experience.
1.5 Definitions
IRA 1-1 The project study area is located on SR 1006 over Little Coharie Creek north of Salemburg
in Sampson County, North Carolina (Appendix A). The area is approximately 1800 feet in
length and ranges in width from approximately 75 feet to approximately 270 feet. Specific
information on the bridge will be supplied by the NCDOT in the NEPA document. The
bridge is located approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of SR 1002 and SR 1006
and the project study area consists of existing maintained right-of-way, floodplain forest,
powerline right-of-way, and pine/hardwood forest.
The project vicinity, which describes an area extending 0.5 mile on all sides of the project
study area, includes primarily forested and agricultural land with scattered private
residences.
2.0 Physical Resources
The project study area is located in the inner coastal plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly
level. Elevations in the project study area range from 125 to 140 ft above sea level (USGS
1974a).
The region around the bridge is rural in nature and surrounding land use includes a mixture
of residential, agricultural, and silvicultural use. Important products from this area include
tobacco, soybeans, corn, cotton, timber, turkeys, chickens, hogs, and cattle.
2.1 Soils
The project study area crosses four soil mapping units. These soils include Johnston loam
(Cumulic humaquepts), Johns fine sandy loam (Aquic hapludults), Goldsboro loamy sand
(Aquic paleudults), Wagram loamy sand (Arenic paleudults). Hydric soils that are mapped
as occurring within the study area includes only Johnston loam, which is frequently
flooded. Nonhydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions mapped as occurring within
the study area include Johns fine sandy loam, which is somewhat poorly drained to
moderately well drained, and Wagram loamy sand, which is well drained. Hydric soil
inclusions of Lumbee and Bibb may be found in these two mapping units in depressions
3
L "I
0
and along drainageways. Additional non-hydric soils that are mapped as occurring within
the study area include only Goldsboro loamy sand, which is moderately well drained.
From a broader perspective, the project study area is located in three separate soil
associations (USDA 1985). The eastern third of the study area is located in the Wagram-
Autryville-Blanton association. This soil association contains nearly level and gently
sloping, well-drained and moderately well drained soils that have a sandy surface layer and
a loamy subsoil. The middle portion of the study area along Little Coharie Creek is located
in the Johnston-Bibb association. This soil association contains nearly level, poorly drained
and very poorly drained soils that have a loamy or sandy surface layer and loamy or sandy
underlying material. The western third of the study area is located in the Norfolk-Rains-
Goldsboro association. This soil association contains nearly level and gently sloping, well
drained, moderately well drained, and poorly drained soils that have a sandy or loamy
surface layer and a loamy subsoil.
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030619 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030006 (USGS 19741'). Little Coharie
Creek is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement
project. Little Coharie Creek originates south of the town of Spivey's Corner in Sampson
County and flows south to its confluence with Great Coharie Creek southeast of the study
area. This stream has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-68-1-17 by the DWQ.
Little Coharie Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
mud, sand, and silt. Floodplain forest occurs along the edges of Little Coharie Creek. The
channel ranges from approximately 20 to 30 feet wide and depths range from
approximately 1 foot to 5 feet. Portions of the channel are slightly entrenched while other
areas show no obvious signs of entrenchment. Preliminary observations indicate that this
particular section of Little Coharie Creek may represent an "F" channel type pursuant to
Rosgen (1996).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. Little Coharie Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of CSw (DEM
1993). The C designation indicates waters designated for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The Sw supplemental
classification indicates Swamp Waters, which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics that are different from adjacent streams.
4
i

F 9 9
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS I, or WS-II
Waters occur within 3.0 mi upstream or downstream of the project study area. Little
Coharie Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a
national Wild and Scenic River.
Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. In 1998, monitoring sites in 19 of the 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear
River Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates
from Little Coharie Creek were sampled in August 1998 at SR 1214, which is south of
Roseboro, and approximately 23 miles downstream from the project study area. This site,
which is labeled as B854500, received a bioclassification rating of Good-Fair (DWQ 2000).
This same site received the same rating of Good-Fair in the 1993 sampling event. Another
measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the
fish community. No NCIBI monitoring is documented for the Little Coharie Creek
watershed.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
"those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity" (NMFS 1999). For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters"
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
"substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a
sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and
"spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
(NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on
EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) mandatory contents include: a description of the
proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action
agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect
includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR
600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption),
indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
5

L'
0
iJ
During the agency review period for the proposed project, the COE makes the
determination of whether or not a proposed project "may adversely affect" EFH. This
determination by the COE is submitted to the NMFS for their review and comment. NMFS
will then determine if additional consultation is necessary regarding the proposed project or
if they concur with COE's decision.
EST's opinion based on best professional judgement and reviewing pertinent literature and
regulations is that the proposed project should not have any detrimental effect on EFH.
Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point "sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions and individual homes (DWQ 2000). Stormwater point source discharges
include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges
associated with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina
must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is one permitted point source discharger
located on Little Coharie Creek (DENR 2001). This discharge is listed in Table 1.
Table 1. NPDES Permitted Discharger Located on Little Coharie Creek (DENR 2001).
Permit Facility
NC0026816 Town of Roseboro
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Receiving Discharge Distance from
Stream (MGD) Study Area
Little Coharie 0.7 Approx. 14
Creek miles
downstream
No evidence of non-point source discharges was observed in Little Coharie Creek during
the field investigation.
Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) can minimize impacts
during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Specific information
6

regarding any potential temporary fill resulting from the bridge demolition will be supplied
by the NCDOT in the NEPA document.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, can be
anticipated as a result of this project if roadway or bridge surface area increases.
However, due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding areas,
impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
resources/organisms. Specific moratorium dates have been requested from the NCWRC.
3.0 Biotic Resources
3.1 Terrestrial
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect
local variations within the project study area. Two natural plant communities occur within
the study area and two additional communities result from human activities (Appendix A).
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forests - Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 1.8
acres (27.7 percent) of the project study area. This plant community type is located on
the both the north and south sides of SR 1006 east of Little Coharie Creek. Selective
cutting has occurred in this plant community in the past. Tree species consist of loblolly
pine (Pious taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Shrub species consist of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Groundcover species consist of greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and Southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype) - Coastal plain small stream
swamp covers approximately 1.3 acres (20.0 percent) of the study area. These plant
communities are associated floodplains of smaller streams and often are semi-permanently
7
flooded. Tree species within the coastal plain small stream swamp associated with Little
Coharie Creek include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), laurel oak (Quercus Iaurifolia),
sweetgum, and red maple. Midstory and shrub species consist of red maple, sweetgum,
alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), and dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris).
Herbaceous species observed include false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), and scattered giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Agricultural Land - Agricultural land covers approximately 0.5 acre (7.7 percent) of the
study area. Agricultural land within the project study area consists of a field located on
the south side of SR 1006, east of the bridge.
Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 2.6 acres
(40.0 percent) of the study area. Most of this area is located on the east side of Little
Coharie Creek. Maintained/disturbed areas can include roadways, roadsides, maintained
residential yards, powerline right-of-way corridors, and areas where other human related
activities dominate the landscape. Roadsides and powerline right-of-ways are typically
maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. Species observed within the road right-of-ways
include blackberry and winged sumac (Rhus copa/lina).
The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on aerial photo base and
field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community within the project
study area is presented in Table 2. This does not take into account the final alignment and
actual right-of-way width, which will result in much less impact than the acreages
presented below.
Table 2. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4268.
Plant Community Approximate Amount in Acres
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.8
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 1.3
Agricultural Land 0.5
Maintained/Disturbed Land 2.6
Total 6.2
Note: Acreage of open water attributed to the Little Coharie Creek channel, 0.3 ac (4.6%
of the project study area), is not included.
8
F I
I
A Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Mammals
directly observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include white-tailed deer (Odocoi/eus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon fotor), eastern cottontail (Syfvifagus fforidanus), and gray
squirrel (Sciurus carofinensis). Other mammals expected to occur in and around the study
area include such species as Virginia opossum (Didefphis virginiana), and rodents such as
beavers (Castor canandensis), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttaffi). Insectivores such
as southeastern shrew (Sorex fongirostris) and southern short-tailed shrew (Bfarina
carofinensis) may also be present in the study area.
Terrestrial reptiles observed within the project study area included only a black racer
(Cofuber constrictor). Other terrestrial reptiles expected in the study area include such
species as green anole (Anofis carofinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carofina), and rat
snake (Efaphe obsofeta).
The only terrestrial or aboreal amphibian observed was the green tree frog (Hyfa cinerea).
Other terrestrial or aboreal amphibians expected to occur in the study area include such
species as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/aria), and
spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
Avian species directly observed within the study area include mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Other more comon species expected to occur in the study
area include such species as northern cardinal (Cardinafis cardinafis), northern mockingbird
(Mimus pofygfottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
fudovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Poecife carofinensis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pifeatus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo fineatus),
and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the study area are typically adapted to life in
fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be minor. Due to the lack of, or
limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife
movement corridors are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
3.2 Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the study area associated with B-4268 includes Little
Coharie Creek and portions of the adjacent floodplain forest where regular flooding is
evident. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were
9

0
observed during the field investigation. The small amount that was observed included
rri alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides).
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electrofishing and visual observation of stream
Wil banks and channel within the project study area were conducted in Little Coharie Creek to
13 document the aquatic community. The depth of the channel and unstable substrate limited
the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish species documented in Little Coharie Creek during the field investigation include
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), blue-spotted
sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), bowfin (Amia calva), and redfin pickerel (Esox
americanus). These species are common inhabitants of blackwater streams and associated
back waters in this region. Coastal Plain streams are often used by anadromous fish
species such as striped bass (Morone saxatillis) and shad (Alosa spp.) Menhinick (1991)
does not document these anadromous fish as occurring in the upper reaches of Little
Coharie Creek; however, these species have been documented by Menhinick (1991) as
occurring in the extreme southern portion of Sampson County. Additional information
regarding the pertinent fisheries resources of this area has been requested from the
NCWRC.
Little Coharie Creek provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the following
species are expected to occur in the study area: green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), and cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Aquatic birds expected to utilize this portion of Little Coharie Creek include such species as
wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Arras platyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea alba), green
heron (Butorides virescens), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted pursuant to DWQ methodologies.
These surveys included kick-net surveys, limited bottom sampling, and walking all
streambanks in the project study area to locate freshwater mussel middens. Kick-net
r'! I
surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within the channel of Little Coharie Creek
produced various aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 3 provides a list of the benthic
organisms collected and identified to Order and Family when possible. Identifications are
based on McCafferty (1998).
7
10
0
n
M Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected from Little Coharie Creek in the Project
Study Area for B-4268.
r.M Order Family

Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Decapoda
Odonata Coenagrionidae
a Corduliidae
Hemiptera Corixidae
Diptera Chironomidae
Coleoptera Haliplidae

E
h Noteridae
C
id
p
emeroptera aen
ae
Bastidae
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of B-4268 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the study area. The replacement of the existing structure with
a bridge rather than a culvert will avoid or reduce permanent impacts to plant communities
and limit community fragmentation unless existing right-of-way widths are increased.
Impacts resulting from bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow strips adjacent to
the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. Plant communities within
01, the project study area are presented in Table 2; however, actual impacts will be limited to
the designed right-of-way and permitted construction limits. Due to the anticipated lack
9.3 of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
should not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations.
Wildlife movement corridors should not be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
Wildlife known to utilize the study area are generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes,
and the bridge replacement should not create any additional detrimental conditions within
the study area.
0
UO

0 Aquatic Communities
The replacement of B-4268 will likely cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities
in and around the study area. Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat will be
avoided by bridging Little Coharie Creek to maintain regular flow and stream integrity.
Support structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever
possible. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute
minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water.
Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet from this stream
channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to
minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce
impacts during all construction phases. Temporary impacts resulting from demolition will
be provided by NCDOT in the NEPA document.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No
long-term impacts are expected to result from this project. No impacts are anticipated to
anadromous fish runs or spawning habitat. Anadromous fish species have not been
documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the project study area. However,
because the study area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographical province, NCDOT's
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish should be utilized to ensure that the
replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish. Resident aquatic species may
be displaced during construction activities; however, anticipated impacts are expected to
be minor and temporary.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
4.1 Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States" and are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and COE as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
12
0
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR
328.3(b)(1 986)].
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Two wetland types occur within the project study area. The surface waters within the
channel of Little Coharie Creek exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,
unconsolidated mud bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UB3H) pursuant to Cowardin
et aL (1979). The floodplain of Little Coharie Creek exhibits characteristics of a palustrine,
forested, deciduous, semipermanently flooded wetland (PF06F). The NWI map indicates
that this wetland is comprised of broad-leaved, deciduous trees (PF01) and does not take
into account the presence of bald cypress. Bald cypress are deciduous, therefore ESI has
modified the Cowardin classification to account for the cypress, resulting in a PF06F
designation.
ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of these wetland areas based on current COE and
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble " Global Positioning
System (GPS) units. Field verification was conducted by Dave Timpy of the COE on
October 9, 2001. Table 4 contains the approximate acreage of the two wetland types
occurring within the study area. The wetland area for each individual wetland type is
approximated based upon aerial interpretation; however, the total wetland acreage is based
upon the GPS mapping results and the defined project study area provided by NCDOT.
Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters Located Within the Project Study Area
for B-4268.
Wetland Type Approximate Acreage Linear Feet
R2UB3H 0.3 90
PF06F 1.3 NA
Total 1.6
90
Anticipated impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be determined
during the design phase of this project. Actual impacts will be limited to right-of-way
widths and will be less than the amounts described in Table 4.
13
0
G
I
4.2 Permit Issues
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)]
are issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ issues a General
401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require
written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under
General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. NWP 33 may be needed
if temporary structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for this
project.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-
way width and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project.
Impacts to open water areas of Little Coharie Creek (R2UB3H) are not expected due to the
use of channel-spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's
will be utilized, including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also
recommended to minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
Wetland Avoidance -Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project
study area, complete avoidance of jurisdictional impacts may not be possible.
Minimization - Minimization of jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by utilizing as much
of the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of new
impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Spanning Little Coharie Creek will
also serve to minimize direct impacts to the stream channel.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation could be required for this project if it does not meet
the criteria for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to NWP 23. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas
within wetlands. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary
fill material within the floodplain upon project completion.
Little opportunity for on-site or directly adjacent mitigation exists with the exception of the
current causeway traversing Little Coharie Creek's floodplain. The existing causeway and
approach to the existing bridge could possibly provide on-site wetland restoration if the
new bridge is designed to span the floodplain so that the existing fill can be removed.
14

E a
lRemoval of fill may also be an option if the new bridge is to be located in a different
location; however, constructing a new bridge in a different location will result in additional
wetland impacts.
4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are
listed for Sampson County (USFWS website list updated March 22,2001):
Table 5. Federally Protected Species Listed for Sampson County, North Carolina.
Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No effect
pis American alligator Alligator mississiopiensis T(S/A)' NA
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E No effect
F, I ' T(S/A) = Threatened due to similar appearance
Red-cockaded woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black and white barred back. Males often have
red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see
(Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine
forests dominated by loblolly, longleaf Winus palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P.
serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
typically occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills holes
into the bark around the cavity entrance, which results in a shiny, resinous buildup around
the entrance. This allows for easy detection of active nest trees due to the high visibility
of the resin deposit at the cavity entrance. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas that are fire
maintained serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species. Development of a
thick understory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential nest
sites for RCW's include pine and pine/mixed hardwood stands greater than 60 years of
age. Hardwood/pine stands (<50% pine) greater than 60 years of age may also be
considered potential nesting habitat if adjacent to potential foraging habitat (Henry 1989).
Foraging habitat is typically comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands over
30 years of age (Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60 percent of the canopy in
order to provide suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger pine stands may be
15

utilized if the trees have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than or equal
to 10 inches. Foraging stands must be connected to other foraging areas or nesting areas
in order to be deemed a viable foraging site. Open spaces or unsuitable habitat wider than
approximately 330 ft are considered a barrier to RCW foraging.
No habitat that would support nesting or foraging populations of the red-cockaded
woodpecker was identified within the project study area nor directly adjacent to the project
study area. The mixed pine/hardwood forest within the project study area is dominated by
hardwoods (> 50%) and is not considered suitable habitat since no adjacent potential
foraging habitat is present. No RCW cavity trees were identified within the project study
area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in
appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians
native to North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a wide variety of freshwater
to estuarine habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes,
large streams, canals, ponds and lakes (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This habitat exists
within the project study area, and the potential for alligators within the study corridor does
exist. No individuals or direct evidence of occurrence was observed during the field
investigation conducted by ESI biologists. Construction activities may temporarily displace
any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to the American
alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed as T(S/A).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Required
Pondberry - Pondberry, also known as Southern spicebush, is a deciduous shrub with a
M
0 limited distribution occurring in two portions of the southeastern United States, the
Mississippi Valley and the coastal plain of the Carolinas (USFWS 1993). Pondberry ranges
in height from 1.5 ft up to 6 ft. It has small, pale yellow flowers that appear in late
February through March. In the Carolinas pondberry occurs along the margins of sink
holes, ponds, and pineland depressions (USFWS 1993). Within North Carolina, potential
habitat for pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds with sandy substrate, especially
sites containing pondspice (Litsea aestivaiis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a
combination of pond cypress (Taxodium ascenders) with loblolly pine and red maple
(Leonard 1995).
7
16
Ila
No habitat for pondberry occurs within the study area. ESI has surveyed for pondberry on
several prior occasions in Sampson County as part of separate NCDOT projects and is
familiar with the specific habitat requirements. A reference population of pondberry
present in adjacent Cumberland County has been inspected by ESI within the past six
months.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern
The March 22, 2001 USFWS website list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso
1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) within the project study area has been evaluated for the
following FSC species listed for Sampson County:
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Sampson County, North Carolina.
Common
Name Scientific
Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC N
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR N
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC(PT) N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC N
American sand mayfly Dolania americana SR N
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC N
Butternut Juglans cinerea W N
White wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC N
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C N
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T Y
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna T N
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii W Y
* E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -C andidate, W - Watch List, P -
Proposed, SR - Significantl y Rare.
17

No FSC were observed during the field investigation and NHP files do not document any
occurrences of FSC species within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
s
0
18
0
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2001. Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xls on 1 September 2001.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River
Basin. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 420
PP.
DWQ. 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 274 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
19

Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
me/issifo/ia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA. 448 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
0 Guidance.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 117 pp.
F.
20

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera
me/issifo/ia). Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
USFWS. 2001. Sampson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal
Species of Concern.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/sampson.litml on 22 March 2001.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974'. Salemburg, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic map.
USGS. 1974b. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
21
Appendix A. Location, Plant Communities, and Wetland Maps
?,/,
158
??m \.,, r 1465 ` \ Q
cer„
SAMPSON"COUN-IY
Ala
•r r
.l
t
TIP BA 8 -- -- T _ -_ _
'6 3
t
SOLE 1;500 -r - r
1.r Cem •?J //, (1455 i
/ i
Halls Store
i -.'t:.--?;;./ -- ,•. _ r "! -Gen ? I? •?'-
r
l r Y ? , ?r ti
Cem
- --- _ `•? / I. z `? i 353
• ? ? 4 rl ?-?^` - - ?. j I i fit.
??>? / t ?• _ __- l III 'r; ?.,
S?ndP'
--Iv .y r3c ?7 { Cem
:Ce?r,
14M r
? - ?% ?;• `fit! ? _. ? , _ ? ?,--?,?`--', ? • ^t
"mom\?._ 1 ! -..`\ - - 1'`•' `,

A .+ fem. ? ??? O / I ? ?? yM?wN•
'IV
.' \ •?•l
r
/ f

v / r
c /
m
/ r
/ r
o (D ?
v ? r

! ? r
N
° > c
v >
°
v
w ?
?
o
> M CVO >
U) r

r
v _ D o r
> - tT L1 = 04 M V
r >
r
r r
r '•
I N
I U
1
I
I
I -
1
I
I
I
1
1 0
1 -
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1 ?1
1 r?+
I
I
1
1
I i
1
1 ?
I O
1 v
I
I
I
I
UI
I
I
I
v I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L I
rl
?I
v 0 .U
> > M
?
v
N .0 b
%, > to LO
?o > v

/ >
O
/
v

I

v !
r
/
/
!
!
!
r
3 /
/

/

!

/
/
r

1
I
?
r
r
r
r

I

I
r
r
I
r
1
I
I
1
t7
L
m
m
+ O
m a
m
0
0
M
O
O
N
m
v ?
U ?
N
O
O
O O
v C4
L
O N
0 L w
.F o
(A O ( } U
m L V O m iG
L
OJ L ~O d d o°
m?Z L m ao
M + ; 9 4- 2 r
J p
c m E O ?7s
p Z) 0 V
> CO 4 O L m 6
_ C 7 m 4N
O in 3 aog
E i !t
v ,

I
I
Appendix B. Data Forms and Field Notes
I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - q), g Date: -7-31^0/
Applicant/Owner: 1NC001_ County: - 5242502n
Investigator: State:G
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? l9s No Community ID: t?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes(Ra Transect ID: 6
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
1
2
(If needed, explain on reverse q
---
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,.
A
b L ,16 H _ 9.
D
L
2. \?1 ti S Cn i J/; n v+? -5 N X- --
3. 11. _
4. 12.
5. 13.
G. 14.
7. - ------ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or )
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
%rl??M Oad '? r% v
V
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
--Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
%?_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary indicators 12 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water. Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) -local Soil Survey Data
_FAC Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
by y??v

SOILS
Map Unit Name I G5
6A 4
7
; Drainage Class: A24Z site-.,
(Series and Phase): ,
C Field Observations
/
' Confirm Mapped Type: Yes (TI
?--
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color

i
) Mottle Colors

IMunsell Moist)-
Mottle Texture. Concretions.
Abundance/Can ast Structure, etc.
inches Hotizon st
(Munsell Mo
3 Ste„
drq 2
-
t sue.
!y- tSf 10 r y L ?.5 L/6 camih? ./J;5
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
FFwd,i ophyticVgetation Pesent?
land Hydrology Pnt?
c Soils Present?
Remarks:

_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Yes ICircle) (Circle)
Yes
Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Co
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HA
8/93

n

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: d - K ? `g Date: 7 -3 /- o /
Applicant/Owner:GQQ County:
Investigator: ?S State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (5 No Community ID: ,44Hkl
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yeses Transect ID: 14 6/
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (9 Plot ID:?
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Domi
nant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
n
r- f' tp 9.
2. 9,
-n?
06 L
10.
-
3. V t u5 !A?diL?r I/ L it.
4. 1? !<?y l;lfi N 12. --
5. 13.
6. i 14.
7. - ----- - ---- - -- - 15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
--Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
--Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs \ Inundated
Other _n-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
vNo Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-t ---Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: -
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water: it

)
(in
Oxidized Root Channels in tipper 12 Inches
. -.-Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water in Pit: a
Q
(in.)
-Local Soil Survey Data
_
- FAC Neutral Test

Depth to Saturated Sail: v'

(in.)
--Other (Explain in Rernarks)
Remarks:
1

SOILS

A.?
Map Unit Name I _ ; e Drainage Class: pGB? ??f d.54 i in
(Series and Phase): 4p IJ Field Observations

'
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
n:
i
ti
e
'
p
o
Descr
Profil Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Matrix Color
Depth
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)

IMunsell Moist) AbundancelCon Last ?-Structure, etc.

LL

'
5 3/ z
q-q
q/ 2-
13

1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils '
_ Histic Epipedon _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Sultidic Odor
ime
Re
i
t
M _
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
g
ure
o
s
_ Aquic
Listed on National Hydric Soils List '
_ Reducing Conditions
L Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
rks:
R '
ema
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present.

No (Circle) (Circle) '
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present? a No

Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No
No

'
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
b
S?? F

t ,
It
n f
_, 3 a
J?
- -- -

L

I

i
I
I

4 _ f

v
?

1. +

v'

11
f

?4 5 y
e

A
7
r

?.l

l

?• ? ? ti
? p.

IS LL

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

II rr
5Cip-4rz
J ?
•? J

)o Woe