20041432 Ver 1_Complete File_20040830

oMW-4-N
Lill
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANspouAnoN
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
July 25, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
OL414 3a
11R@98WR1 V. a
SEP 12006
D6NR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATEBRANCH
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
Subject: Co-vAe5 Notification of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 74 on SR 1402
over Bones Creek unnamed tributary (UT), Cumberland County, NCMA 6
011
Please find attached the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form and
related figures for the referenced project. The North Carolina Depart ment of Tran
sportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 74 over Bones Creek UT in Cumberland County.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site using existing secondary roads. The
anticipated let date for this proposed project is October 200,6,The NCDOT is proceeding with
the project in the knowledge that the proposal is authorized under provisions of Nationwide
Permit No. 3.
The existing structure was built in 1961 and has a sufficiency rating of 43.6, considered
functionally obsolete. The superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists. End bents and interior bents are timber caps on timber piles. The existing structure is 36
feet long and has a clear roadway width of 24 feet. Crown to bed height is 10 feet. The existing
bridge will be removed in accordance with the NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP) for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR). The timber components will be removed without
dropping any components into Waters of the U.S. However, there is potential for small amounts
of concrete components of the bridge to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during demolition.
The potential temporary fill that could result from demolition of the concrete deck is estimated to
be 9.37 cubic yards. Removal of this material following demolition and construction will
proceed with utmost caution.
The recommended replacement structure is a three span bridge approximately 65 feet in
length and approximately 43 feet iu width. The approach roadway will hold the existing
horizontal alignment and roadway width. It will also be at approximately the same elevation as
the existing roadway. Deck and roadway drainage will be maintained by utilizing a minimum
grade of 0.3 percent and a minimum cross-slope of 2.0 percent for the proposed structure and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
PO BOX 1150 FAX: [phone] LOCATION:
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28302 558 Gillespie St.
WEBSITE.• WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US Fayetteville, NC 28301
z 4F ?-l;
Z,I\j
roadway approaches. Current plans also include funnel pipe deck drains to reduce potential for
water and ice-related crashes. Drainage from these funnel pipe drains will flow to rip-rap energy
dissipaters near the bridge abutments and will be diverted away from the stream.
Bones Creek UT is located within the Cape Fear River drainage, subbasin 03-06-15, and
hydrologic unit 03030004. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has
designated a best usage classification for Bones Creek UT of "C" from its source to Little
Rockfish Creek.
There are currently no 303(d) listed streams, high quality waters (HQW),
outstanding resource waters (ORW), or drinking water supply waters (WS-1 and WS-II)
within a one mile radius of the project study area. Bones Creek UT is not a designated
anadromous fish spawning area.
Permanent impacts to Waters of the U. S. include 0.004 acre of fill in wetlands and 0.004
acre of surface water fill where bents will be placed in the channel. Temporary impacts to Bones
Creek UT include disturbing approximately 25 feet of stream channel during removal of existing
end bents. Temporary impacts also include 0.037 acre of mechanized clearing adjacent to
endbents and where a proposed funnel drain will be placed on the northwest corner of the bridge
location. Existing wood pilings will be either pulled out of the channel or cut flush with the
substrate. Turbidity curtains will be installed for bent removal if bents are pulled out.
Construction equipment will be operated from the existing road surface and/or upland areas and
will not enter wetland areas. Measures will be taken to ensure that sediment releases from this
activity will be contained to the immediate location of the pile removal operation. Jurisdictional
wetlands are located immediately adjacent to the existing bridge (Figure 3). The proposed bridge
replacement is a Case 3 demolition project as described by the NCDOT BMP-BDR.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified six Endangered (E)
species, one Threatened (T), one Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)], and 29
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Cumberland County. Threatened and endangered species
for Cumberland County are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Species of Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mithellii francisci E
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Pondbcny Lindera melissifolia E
Rough-letLYed tvv$CS«-u:u? F
...yotirtut,ntu uSY6i"uiyutiu r
L
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E

concm'g
ical conclusion of May
and a biolog tter from the U SFWS
at the site arch 30, 2004 le
ondberry exists
Habitat for p Affect was concluded. A Mcorlsideration CDGT, s activities
to Adversely ed of the ,formation, please
j,l]tely to • cal conclusion is attached for y° ee you inform o f the Niwith this bio submitted to k P Gener
o al W ateT
IS subm After your revie
that
ntification Of the U •S • anticipate hat 40OT Will comply
This courtesy . waters records. We wQ The NCD questions
with jur, 3 t tear sheet for our CD YOU
have any that intersect of the 3 t will be authorized by the Certification. if y Vhank You for your
forward a copy 3316 Water Quality 910) 437-0207
Certification 'No p-3 and the 401 e at
Quality ditions of N ect, please contact m
with all con concerning the proj
or comments
?? ()
time and assistance ozin
dies J . ReTko ental officer
Division Environm
Attachments
PCN
USFWS letter
ro ect "'1 icinity
Figs e 2 pr ject Topography
th
Figure 3 waters of
Figur
perrnit Drawings d forms
Stream and wetlan
NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. JohnHennessy,NCWpC
cc: Mr Travis Wilson W S
Mr Gary Jordan, USF Bridge MainteCo sultants
M ers, P.E•,
NIT. Mike Summers, Engineers &
W. Kevin Austin,
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing ,
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 3
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: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Highway Division 6 (mail) Highway Division 6 (delivery)
PO Box 1150 558 Gillespie St.
Fayetville, NC 28302 Fayetteville, NC 28301
Attn: Terry R. Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: tgibson(a,dot.state.nc.us
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: James J. Rerko
Company Affiliation: NCDOT Division 6 Environmental Officer
Mailing Address: PO Box 1150
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (910)_486-1959
E-mail Address: ijrerkoAdot.state.nc.us
Page I of 8
P
Habitat for pondberry exists at the site and a biological conclusion of May Affect - Not
Likely to Adversely Affect was concluded. A March 30, 2004 letter from the USFWS concurring
with this biological conclusion is attached for your consideration.
This courtesy notification is submitted to keep you informed of the NCDOT's activities
that intersect with jurisdictional waters of the U.S. After your review of the information, please
forward a copy of the NWP-3 tear sheet for our records. We anticipate that 401 General Water
Quality Certification No. 3376 will be authorized by the NCDWQ. The NCDOT will comply
with all conditions of NWT-3 and the 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions
or comments concerning the project, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your
time and assistance.
nncerely,
ames J Rerko
Division Environmental Officer
Attachments
PCN
USFWS letter
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
Figure 2 Project Topography
Figure 3 Waters of the US
Permit Drawings
Stream and wetland forms
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Mike Summers, P.E., Bridge Maintenance
Mr. Kevin Austin, Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
v
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. 74 on SR 1402 over Bones Creek UT
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NCMA 6011
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fenix
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Fayetteville: 401 south -
after passing the town of Fenix, turn right onto SR 1402 (Rim Road).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 035"02'9.14"N 079"02'54.28"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): 1.43 acres (estimated based on 1,036-foot length project and 60-foot
wide right-of-way)
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Bones Creek UT
8. River Basin: Cane Fear River Basin
(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 generai iand use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Existing. bridge crossing Bones Creek UT surrounded by
Page 2 of 8
bottomland swamp forest community, with upland consisting of loblolly nine dominated
mixed nine-hardwood forest. The surrounding land use is residential
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
existing structure is a 36 foot long bridge composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber
ioists, with end bents and interior bents of timber caps on timber piles Existing bents and
piles will be removed and new endbents and piles will be poured on site The recommended
structure is a 2-span 65 foot long bride composed of reinforced concrete with concrete end
bents and interior bents. Traffic will be maintained by a five mile off-site detour. Equipment
to be used includes standard bridge construction equipment
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Remove Bridge No. 74 over Bones Creek UT
and replace with a new bridge structure on the existing location The existing structure has
been given a sufficiency rating of 43.6 and a status of functionally obsolete
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section Viii below. if additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent impacts to Waters of the
U. S. include 0.004 acre of fill in wetlands from the fill slope being extended and 0.004 acre
of surface water fill where bents will be placed in the channel. Temporary impacts to Bones
Creek UT include. disturbing approximately 25 feet of stream channel during removal of
existing end bents, and 0.037 acre of mechanized clearing_adiacent to the roadway. Existing
wood pilings will either be pulled out of the channel or cut flush with the substrate.
Turbidity, curtains will be installed for bent removal if bents are pulled out. Construction
equipment will be operated from the existing road surface and/or upland areas and will not
enter wetland areas.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma acres es/no linear feet
1. Wetland fill 0.004 Y 0 Bottomland swamp forest
Temporary
2. (Mechanized 0.037 Y 0 Bottomland swamp forest
Clearing)
* 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 hM://www.fema.gov.
*** 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: 2.05 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.004 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name* * of Stream Intermittent?
indicate on ma linear feet Before Impact leasespecify)
Temporary
3. impact (Bent 25 Bones Creek UT 25 feet Perennial
removal)
* 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.usgs.aov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mgpguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 25 (temporary impact)
Page 4 of 8
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 Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
indicate on ma (acres) bay, ocean, etc.
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
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.
Impacts will be avoided or minimized by reolacinl? the bridl?e in place, havine an off-site detour.
diverting stormwater into funnel drain (no deck drains over open water), and no equipment will
be in wetlands. The new bridge will be approximately 29 feet longer than the old bridge, thus
endbents will be moved farther away from the waters edge, increasing the floodplain area under
the bridge. Turbidity curtains will be installed when pilings are removed if they are pulled out.
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.
USAGE - 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
Page 5 of 8
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.etir.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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.
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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
Page 6 of 8
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SERA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes El No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total N/A N/A N/A
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
Page 7 of 8
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.
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. .
An erosion/sedimentation control plan will be incorporated into the construction plan.
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 Z
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).
Z
Ikpplicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
HT FTyF,y? United States Department of the Interior
Vi FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
+qCH 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 30, 2004
Julie Gibson
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
P.O. Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636
Dear Ms. Gibson:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 22, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 74 on SR 1402 over UT to Bones
Creek and Bridge No. 11 on SR 2008 over UT to Locks Creek in Cumberland County, North
Carolina may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered pondberry
(Lindera melissifolia). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, plant surveys were conducted at the project sites in
March 2004. No specimens of pondberry were observed. Based on the information provided
and other information available, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed
bridge replacements may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect pondberry. We believe that
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this species. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
/o+r? A
?0 r arlan d B? Ph.D.
r ,
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
f 3122
` F
rrRRR Bi Rwl L"J 695
qN° Mew

?f Rd.

J

2i 2693
1 3440
_

a
474 C
478 \ 3519
0every $474
/
12" -•.
3477 j
+J It
352
7 andmont D..
moo 480 i_
a
1
3479
- L
4 Fox Fond

3804
390Q 36 4 i° s° g

9 X380 ? Fwnde° D
d r.
Rweraoed

1393
1398 M
? ? 6• ?? Aw .yy? cr.
Lata'°
Q
•MM Ave Dr. Dr.
1400 3696 3 02 1394 ar_ 8
3570 #p
R d
as"
3669
d.
388
401

3667 1
Dr. 102
Q?
qr
A+ r
?y
.ter 4Q1
w. ?~8
LS
S 1
K
a
1! 5 ! y'erldlV
umber Od - Sadman
1 i1
1 Udar !11
} Nfi Craek
Mf; * E
R L A N
r?C U M
1 IS ?1 \
1518 ,yam _,. ?
den N
B 1516 3884
.? 3883
3 0 } 341 3411
151 Dooden Dr. /
Ln, 441 38 9 3861 3882
? i
3444
IL41 J Thb
Rd
3446
MOLWAIM S R 3590
J a.
3
ctlrwdl
i
MA6011 \
40
Lek
?-?••? ?:1 Fenix
1
f
i
i
l
401 1 3747
SpInamo
Dr..
1 \ Bi. 7
PROJECT VICINITY
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 74 ON SR 1402
e%% sr a rr -r . n . -_ ?._
wvcm UI IU DVllo:i Vfuulk
NORTH CAROLINA MOVING AHEADI
MA6011
mlr mlla
0 0.25 0.5
FIGURE 1
• •• •• a? ,? -:}dam _ ?.. ?. d -.•
u • r va
¦ N a
• ?3
.
? ? • ? _ may,' S •? e
•
J J®. • r¦ orLr •
s
y V l'
s ? I Ir
6 ?+ ? k b' 1,'? it 41,(?i•
-
MA6011.
1100 ? < ?r? r jt>?
S, 2Q . • ,.
l AI "• ?Y• • ? + / i !? t V1
C t ?t •? ? lab '. !??} ?I
a } ?•? llllt •\f ?? i I f
-? 177 • • ? Ct."y?P. C ,,??'' ? S'??? '~4
lily t • I ?;
1103
IIlS a, ? 1 1
40- PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY
M U L K E Y MA6011 Figure No.
ENGINEERS & CON 5 U LTA N T S Bridge No. 74 On SR 1402 Over Bones Creek
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:24,000
Feet f.
0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Clifdale
Contour Interval 10 Feet
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
- - - - -APPROXIMATE ROAD LOCATION
STUDY CORRIDOR

-?-MULKEY WETLANDS SCALE: Figure No.
[NOIN[[R[i .... TANT[
•°[ml [[I [7
il
??
..V
6011 1// 150/
•1 .1[
1111 [`

www.NUL[[nN°•°°.1 74 On SR 1402
Bridge No
Prepared For:
.
Over UT To Bones Creek 9Vj
Cumberland County "?,
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
---WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* + DENOTES MECHANIZED
++++ • + CLEARING
- -? FLOW DIRECTION
TB__ TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
DENOTES AREA TO BE EXCAVATED
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 1
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 2
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TT f\rT?/'T if /I.•
rnv+??. i : rua-o?u
REPLACE BRIDGE 074
ON SR 1402 OVER
TRIBUTARY TO BONES CREEK
SHEET OF
2-25-04
LEGEND
PR
PR
®
mmf PR
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
)POSED BRIDGE
)POSED BOX CULVERT
OPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
PIPES
54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
Johnston loam Drainage Class:

Field Observations
e? Yes No
d T
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Cumulic Huma ue t yp
Confirm Mappe
Profile Descr_izion:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth
rizon
H (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
o
nc a
SL
0-4 A 2.SY412
SL
4-10 BI 2.5Y312
SL
10-12+ B2 2.5 Y412
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Concretions
Histosol High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Histic Epipedon _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
__Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Reducing Conditions Other (Explain in Remarks)
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydropbytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYdric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
plot taken --10' downhill of WB20 flag (not at WB27 flag b1c too many shadows, getting dark, not enough sunlight)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011
_ Date: - 11/24/2003__..
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Cumberland
Investigator(s): J. Gibson State: NC

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No " Transect ID:
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WB20
(If needed, explain on reverse)
area under large pipe parallel to road significant istur e by road was
V LIT. I A I ILKN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species- Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus taeda overstory FAC 9.
2. Arundinaria xigantea herb FACW 10.
3. Liguidambarstyraci/lua understory FAC 11.
4. Magnolia virAtntana shrub FACW+ 12.
5. Acer rubrum understory FAC 13.
6. Myriea cerilera shrub FA C 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) . 100%
Remarks:
passes .4C-Neutral test
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
x Drift lines
x Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stamed Leaves
x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
I
i
s
Map Unit Name Johnston loam
(Series and Phase)
Cumulic Numn tie t
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
r., ccri?9JL
Depth ?Il
(now
A
2-10 B
10
gydric Soil Indicators:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Dwwubim
Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type Yes No
Texture, Concretions,
Mottle Structure, etc.
Abundance/Contrast
,?? , 11 o?stl i6ric I
SL
I DYR3/1 SCL, oxidized root channels
10yR4/I
His{osol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
pquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or LOW-aroma colors
concretions Layer in Sandy Soils
High Organic Content in Surface Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
horizon 50/50 mix. not dark enough to be 70130 coated/uncoated sand groins
Remarks:
A
DE'I'ERMNATION
WETLAND
Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
yes No
HYdric Soils Present?
Remarks:
plot taken _IO' downhill of WAI flag
No
is this Sampling point Within a Wetland? Yew
;j
1
{
i
{
i
s
I
:i
'i
Project/Site: MA 6011
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
Yes No
If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soxiec Stratum Indicatfu
1. Pinus iaeda overstory FAC I
9
Date: 1 1/24/2003
County: Cumberland
State: NC
Community ID: PFO
Transect ID:
Plot ID: WA1
Dominant Plant p °i ° atmm Indicator
Magnolia virAiniana shrub FACW+
2. Quercus nlera

a understo
- ?'
FAC
10. Ilex,elabra shrub FACW
,.? 3. _L_iguidamborsivraci/lua undersiory FAC
11.
.?
4. Vaccintum co mbosum
-- unclerstory FACW
12.
5. Ilex ooaca underslory FAC
13.
I 6. Cyrilla racemi/lora shrub FACW
14.
7. Smilx roiundifolia vine
FAC
15.
8. Pteridlum aquillrum herb FACU
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
9035
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
- (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-s Water-Stained Leaves
Y _ Local Soil Survey Data
__ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOU'S
Map UnitName
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
a loam sand
W yarn
Arenic Kandiudult
Mottle Colors
(color
TAatn
t
Mottle
pbundancclContrast
• i '
Depth b3dzo

1 OYF2/1
10wR
Texture, Concretions,
S,ructure,etc,
?bric
LS
LS
in Sandy soils
concretions
surface Layer Organic Contest in Soils
High Streaking In Sandy rst
Organic dric Soils L
Listed on 1 °`aI xv
HYdr'c soils List
ational
Remark)
visted Or' S) other (E plain in
i
dicators'.
Ixydric S°il In
Gleyed or iota-Clr sand grains
coaterUuneoated
Remarks: A horizon 60/40 ,nix. not dark enough 7to 70/30
1
xistosol
I-listic BPiPedon
Sulfidic Odor
uic Moisture Re8irr1e
?Aq Conditiorrs
Reducing coma Colors
StNA?ON
VY rj DETE No
Ycs
HYd'?hcvegetationYresentT Yes No
dr? pre$ent4 No
wetland xY 'Yes
I HYdric Soils Present?
P •r^' "yr- plot taken -10, uphill of WA 1 Pog
prainagc Class.
yield Observations rIo
C.onfirtnMapPedType° Yes
No
'Yes
is this SamplingP°intwithin a q']etland?
Project/Site:
Applicant/owner.
Investigator(s):
t 1 ya / COE Wetlands Del ' -CR eaition INA TION
Manual)
MA 6011
NCDOT
J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site signifcantl
Y disturbed YeS No
(Ah'pfcalSituation)?
Is this area a potential Problem a,,.., ,
Yes I,l
VEGETATION
?G?lll/PBnt P?gg
] • ri11n raceme ar=_
2. ercus ni ra
3• L! uidambars r
acl ua
0
Yes No
Date: 11/24/2003
County: Cumberland
State: NC
Community ID:

TransectID; u land
Plot ID:
K'AI
r?
rrv??
?nlnant p]am e
understo e
uercus albs
74C 9.
and atop F 10.
understo
4
Llrlodendron tuli Foe
11.
ttera
? ? und. e? rs?

5• Ga lussacin rondosa FAC+
12:

6' M rlca cer[lera F.IC
13.

7. Plnu_ s-, s???- F.IC
14.
8 L! ustrum sinens C 15.
e s!-

Percent of Dominant S
e
i - F,q
C 16.
-'
P
c
es that are OBL, FgCW
o

emarks. ,
r FAC
(exc

luding FAC-).
underato?. 'F,4 CU
>> 75%
HYDROLOGY
F-RecOrded Data (Describe in r
Remarks)
Stream. Lake. or tide Gauge
A""Photographs
Other
,X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free
Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil: (rn )
(in.)
temarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required :
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Loca' Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
0 ther (Explain in Remarks)
i• 1llL'? 1 h r viv.i
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011 Date: 11/24/2003
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Cumberland
Investigator(s): J. Gibson State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HNo
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes on

Community ID: upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: WAI
V1<i !_FT A TVIN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Cyrilla racemeflora understory FACW 9. Ouercus albs understory FA CU
2. Ouercus nigra understory FAC 10.
3. Liquidambarstyraciflua understory FAC 11.
4. Liriodendron tulipifera understory FA C+ 12.
5. Gaylussacia frondosa shrub FAC 13.
6. Myrica cerifera shrub FAC 14.
7. Pinus taeda overstory FAC 15.
8. Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >75%
Remarks:
TY"R 01.nf.V
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
'- Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Cnri .S

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Wagram loamy sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
e? Yes No
ed T
M
f
C
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Arenic Kandiudult yp
app
on
irm
Profile Descrivtion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 0i ftbric
2-4 A 10YR211 LS
4-14+ B 10YR512 LS

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
A horizon 60140 mix, not dark enough to be 70130 coatedluncoated sand grains
vv TT_AivnT1F.TF.RMTNATT()N

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
li
I
hi
S
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ng
amp
s t
s

v w -
plot taken -10' uphill ofWAI flag
e. ,.,. a t n 14ZA -A/Q7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

'.7,f .c. .i.• :1v, ..?q?.r,o,;.-.rR•/t .. ..a'-.: Y.'; 'Rj_ Y r!1•` .rti :t?'i ] ,,r,.. r

..
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
_ '•
t
! '0 5
0 5, 7Slr•
-0 4 '7
tom` 1 S
ts
no flow or saturation= 0 strop flow = max ` oin .I• ,. .

?..

Evidence of past human alterat[on
0 -6 -5
2 extensive alteration =. 0• iio alteration = max Dints -?
3 Riparian zone
r 0 0-.4"?ti
?
t` = max Dints
no buffer= 0• contiguous, wide buffer •,Lr, ' ,r n
' '? "r'

4 Evidence of nutrient, or chemical discharges 0 5
` t
x o
=
di
h
v
i
r
° 0' n
xt J, }
1 ma
m
s
sc
arges
ensi
e d
scha
o
is
e

5 Groundwater discharge ..
0
0 4
no discharge = 0• s rip s sees wetlands etc. = max oints
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain ' .: ..i,
5 r,
0 -4
: `' :,r
0 - 4 1 1
Dints
no flood lain = 0 extensive flood lain = max .. ti
•
laln access ' "S'' ?`' > ' •
Entrenchment / flood
„
?` "" ?- ` x •
?
1

,??r"d
p :
y.#
,b:;4
'?"k' 0
? 2: ?-
?C
"
'
W deeply entrenched = 0• fre went flooding = miix oiats *? ` °
?.°• '
•%,'-
` Presence of adjacent wetlands,,:,.
06 '. ;.,
•:; ; `0`' w`
?N no wetlands = 0 lar e'ad'acent wetlands = max omts
?.
9 Channel sinuosity s c a .'.. 0 5 0 ;4 i-
extensive channelization 0 natural meander max points
10 Sediment Input.,,: 0 5 ,.0 4
-
extensive deposition- 0 little or no sediment = max points I ?
, . + t '+? ?' ?,; ht Ra: /
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 14

diversesizes'= max
fine home enous ='0• large
Evidence of channel incision or widening' I?? •?? ' ?j' 'a? '
(deeply incised =`0• stable bed & banks s max oints • • >r^> ,? + f ?t'+.??. • ?'-

..

13 .-W
Presence of major bank failures ,? 55
l
}
y
p Ali
a ' ?
0
5
?
1
a ?` : 'ry"=
ti ?0 - 5
:?
??
k? ;
.= max
mts
severe erosion = 0• no'orosio 'stable band +
,
?, ?
M
Root depth and density on banks d5'
• `A *?'' k
H' boilt = max Dents
no visible roots = 0 dense roots throu ' .' -+ ., - ??
?1h

'

15 Im act bY'agricultur livestocksor timber'rproduction ;?

.
P . .
:
;
{
+

?
0 S

5;.
All
'`>
,!' P
•? .5
0 z
YMr
rE+ .: lY
,
„ .;
1
•
substantial i2 ea* =0 no evidence max omts t ,
fi1.
y
? 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple=pool coinpleies
` b;y
t . f no riffles/riles or pools = 0• well-develo ed = mait' Din 5.r•: 1
.,
„?±ti. 'r:?'•??
E 17 Habitat complexity .41., . , w ', ?? i `
'
1 '?' :. ; ti K
0 6
K{ ,,:yy. *:.:•s ,f
0
6
'
varied habitats = max oin ts
or no habitat - 0• fre ?uent
' liitle 4 ?4+
?F
z
18' -.Canopy coverage over stre,ambed `' i i f5r;.
• ...... •.. ::;';,r'?', `._?.5.•;h,
,:, . ?. , . sb . ? i
?' fkr::•
,
°
0' S : x:'"• b `{` ` ;` -`z "`
S;wyr,'J' ?'•. 4
..0 . ,S ai A '?
ion O continuone = max oinis ?.
no shad in v us cae etat r
:_a
:•
r , . • .:
.r ..
c y;1;- ?:.?tt? # :?;" ;•
.'

5
-19 Substrate embeddedness b ?a'

:,
* °' ?' 3 k5
. loose structure a maxF
(deeply embedded -
0

'
20 Presence of stream invertebrates

P..g ,- .,r' , t
?
'

g }'' 0
s
4 f

0 5 S
r = max om
?s
no evidence 0 common numerous es a
. ,
(,y
:21 Presence of amphibians .; t 11
4 R

`
O:
no evidence= 0• common, numerous es = max Dints
1.5 ,,. ??
ray:-;*?<c
t?„sa .?`.
9

O:
01 -
22 7
= Presence of fish =' t1Yy4,,
ra Ft'l' ?'i•in` ••:Fr
'

•? 'i h

fr?:4,'

'
. . i :

no evidence= 0 common on,
ty?Oes = max Dints r 5

? ?

.. t *. n " ?? ?'-"•: ,
Oc
.23 , : ; .. Evidence'of wildlife use P
tfs j+? r >'?:Lr TQ 5y
q
b '?
rK,
' no evidence = 0' abundant evidence = max omts .
•
? iYt ,a,; -.?y Ju.., r; ' jsy?tt ?r""-a . ' "'"• ?:,?•,?r, Rt c',,. g7a Total P& is Pole
jTcR IM,
.'
al's; er Qn fir
pa' ;
'AL1`SGO ;
W
s
?'{ r
''u
tT
;
{
.
,
`
1
a
t?-0Y
•.?.M.wL'6aif1?'??4'?}__..-+.?__. -
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Ml STREAM .QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment: _
1. Applicant's name: NC pc>T 2. Evaluator's name: y' ? 'j
"t.
3. Date of evaluation: If ZI w 6 / ?+ 4. Time of evaluation: 11a M
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin: CITa Fe°t-
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS ?opo Sheet Ortho`(Aerial) Photo/GIS•.. Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (noteZr M roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
5? 1`gZ (P-"WLPd.)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions at time of visit: V
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial t% Agricultural
c)D% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5w k y' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -y-Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3. provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature b t 4 Date
This chAnnrl PVAI1lAt1On form Vr intended to be used :uj a* n rULUC i0 n8Si3t iuudurvners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required 6y the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

W

19
;

, :i j

r I i
', r y-

a
EE-4 a
z?
NH
OW
x>
00
w
a
U
0
W
Q
J
V LL
LL
N
r
Z ?
O
N
N N
O? ?r-r Nw
0. Q Z r Z Z
r m
Q _ Q
m0 U #O
ti U O ft
?Z W p m7
O
?N [0 a U CO
'2Ct
Qo ? g ?
w
o ?o

U
Z
"PPO
a
N
V
a
a
U
ZQ
U
0 0
Q .
Q
3 w
J
LL,
a
W
N
I
LL
U ®?
N
L
r
C
C
d
d
r
O
N
A
w
c?
3
7 tab
N U
W
O
Z
- - • .+u a r vaua
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project>Site MA 6011
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Yes a e: - _ ... _-1172412GU3- ------- --
Fy-es No
Yes HN

County: Cumberland
State: NC

Community ID: _ upland
TransectID:
Plot ID: WB27
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Indicator
1. Pin us taeda overstory FAC 9.
2. Quercusjalcata understory FAC 10.
3. Liquidambar styracillua understory FAC IL
4. Cornus /lorida understory FA CU 12.
5. Ilex glabra shrub FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) . >75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ol1TT C

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Wagram loamy sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Arenic Kandiudult Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(jaghla) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR411 LS
4-14+ B 2.5Y514 10YR518 faint, few LS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
A horizon 50150 mix, not dark enough to be 70130 coated/uncoated sand grains
,tTno+-rT Atvn?TFTTI2MTlVATT0N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No I
Remarks:
plot taken -10' uphill of WB27Jlag

m r
i)
m z
0
Y

J Q w o
It
w
V ..? T CD v
Cc m
- >CO a:
J)
' r
W
T
Q Z Z Z
Z? :)
0
LL 0
m
a: oa ?m
°
Cl) 0
w= Z L?
° 0 g?
a:
z LLI ° a
w0 5

?cn ? w
a
m
> > UC
?
Q D U : l
Z w CL CL CC
_ 0 CC 0
a -- z
j T
G =
U
w
Ci)

V N
a z ° r
(L g -- o
c ? U .., C

W i
a
m
t
? E
0
LL r-
a: "

ui U
a
E

J 'L
LL. v T
ca

m co
F=- 04 Ln W m :) Co

cc 0 (1)
w
n
L
i 0

1 z
Natural Systems
Assessment
NCMA 6011
Bridge No- 74 on SR 1402
over Bones Creek UT
Cumberland County, Nom Carolina
May 2004
Introduction
The NCDCIT proposes t
on o re
SR 1402 (? R place Bridge No. 74
on Road) in Cumberland Over Bones Creek
Moving Ahead Project (NCMA 601 Coun unnamed tributary (U
suburb of Fayetteville 1. ty> which is identified as a North Fie 1 (not within Fa ettev project is Si Carolina
$?• and p j Y vine c3ture tuated west of the t°w
the ro ect topography is shown ' guts). The project t n of Fenix, a
The existin s ivicinity is shown in
tru
of 43.6 andg sta cture is a
tus of O span bridge built in 1961. The concrete floor on functionally timber obsolete The superstruc
. bridge has a sufficiency ratin
g
amber piles The exists joists. End bents and i torenterior is bents comp are composed
timbofer a caps on
feetc The r 36 feet ion
Crown to bed height is 10 dge
which g and has a clear
will be approximately recommended re lace roadway Width of 24 feet.
be a twos 65 feet in lea P mend strode e a new b
pan, Prestressed concrete cored The reconunended u
During construction, traffic will be main slab bridge, one span at 400 feet fee rnent struatt25 will
tained by a five t and one at 25 feet.
This assessment re mile Off site detour.
This corridor. port briefly describes
Field investi the natural systems that occur
Study MULI{Ey on gahons at the project site were conduc
feet to each side of November 24, 2003.e ted bthus the project
from the centerline Project study corridor is 3 Offied biologists
bridge. Published info ), and 500 feet ion
midge. of bli rmation regardin g measured fro each end ofwide (150
-reso aces. Information con gthe Prect area and region was deriv the existing
within species ed from a
ervice
(USFW S li roject vicinity g occurrence of federal and rate
t of protected was gathered from the United States Fish an protected
(NCNHP) database of rare species Pecies and the North and Wit
and dlife
unique habitats. Carolina Natural Heritage Program
1
Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Julie R. Gibson, Scientist
Education: BS Earth and ERn oo s - Restoration Ecology), University
North Carolina State
University
Experience: ' Scientist, Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, u January 2000 to August 2001
Naturalist, Morris County Park Co Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wetland determination
and delineation, and habitat assessments
inventory of Natural Resources
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
nderta,ken to comp lte wetland delineations, stems
within the study area. A field survey was u
determine natural resource conditions, and to document ur?izlet?g o nee p oposed d
the presence of protected species or their habitats. action are identified and estimated based once s ndy area
resource impacts mes dations are . The
included in this report for measures which design
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary concepts. If parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may need to be
conducted.
Water Resources
The project site occurs in the Cape Fear River Basin miles ? portion of 25 ountiestheast
North Carolina. This basin encompasses 9,322 conve of the
including Cumberland County. The Cape Fear eve ??o e A??c O eanxgT'he Bones
Haw and Deep Rivers, and flows southeast entering
Creek UT is located within Subbasin 03-06-15. oThe NortCarolina 4 2Dand ion U Wa 8-digit
Quality (NCDWQ) stream index number
hydrologic unit is 03030004. The project is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
province.
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Bones
Creek UT is a Class "C" stream from its source to Little Rockfish Creeu ..st he i arresource
high quality waters (HQW), o
currently no 303(d) listed streams,
waters (ORW), or drinking water supply waters (WS-I and WS-II) within a one mile
radius of the project study area. Bones Creek UT is not a designated anadromous
fish spawning area. ine The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS d for collection of physcal tuard chemical
quality monitoring stations strategically located etermi water-quality data. The type of water-quality data or parameters tandardd its e AMS ed by
the waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality
2
1
determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports
its designated uses. There are three AMS monitoring stations in this subbasin; however,
there are no AMS monitoring stations along Bones Creek UT or near the project site. The
most recent use support rating for Bones Creek UT is "fully supporting" (FS). A fully
supporting rating is given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and generally
has good or excellent water quality.
Non-point sources of discharge are considered to be primary sources of water quality
degradation. These sources may include surface water runoff and discharges from
construction activities. Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related
activities include increased sedimentation and turbidity. Long-term construction related
impacts to water resources include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased
turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to
removal of streamside vegetation.
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from
construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage of fill material and
control runoff. Such measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDOT's Bert Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters (BMPs - PSW), Sedimentation Control guidelines, and state design standards
should be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project.
Bridge demolition activities to remove the existing bridge are included as part of the build
alternatives. The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As per the
BMPs - BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and implemented where
practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water.
Biotic Resources
Biotic resources surrounding the project site are indicative of urban communities with
moderate human disturbance. Right-of-way areas along the road are periodically maintained
by mowing. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Clifdale) that depicts the project
area shows the downstream area of the Bones Creek UT as Palustrine Emergent Persistent
Semipermanently Flooded Diked/ Impounded (PEM1Fh) system. The upstream area is
depicted as a Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Semipermanently Flooded
Diked/ Impounded (PFO1Fh) system. Field investigations confirmed this wetland type.
The majority of the area surrounding the bridge is a bottomland swamp forest community
with a mature canopy dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and water oak (Quercus nigra). Understory vegetation is
dominated by woody vines and shrub species that includes greenbriar (Smilax spp.),
American holly (Ilex opaca), inkberry (Ilex PIabra), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corvmhosum);
titi (Cyrilla racemiora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Herbaceous and grass species were primarily bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and giant cane
(Arundinariagigantea). The remaining upland area is a mixture of man-dominated area and a
loblolly pine dominated mixed pine hardwood forest, the understory with woody vines
3
containing yellow poplar (Liriodendim tulotfera), sweetgum, Chinese privet (Ligustrum finense),
and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Waters of the United States (Wetlands and Streams)
Bones Creek UT at the bridge site is typical of low gradient swamp systems with an
undefined channel. Water color is dark due to tannic acid'and flow is very slow. The
wetland systefn occurs below the toe of the roadway embankment at the project site. The
Cumberland County Soil Survey indicates one hydric "A" soil: Johnston loam QT) mapped
within the wetland system. While the wetland system is much larger than the project site,
approximately 2.05 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the study corridor
(Figure 3). Based on current design plans to replace Bridge No. 74 in place, no wetlands are
anticipated to be impacted.
Permits
Clean Water Act permits are routinely required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) usually
requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act when unavoidable impacts total more than 0.10 acres (0.04 hectares) of wetlands,
or 150 linear feet (45.7 linear meters) of perennial or certain intermittent streams. No
impacts to waters of the United States are likely to result from the replacement of Bridge
No. 74; therefore it is reasonable to anticipate that Nationwide Permit No. 3 may be used.
Please be advised that in the absence of final bridge design it is not possible to
predict the magnitude of impacts. This statement is tentative and based on
conceptual bridge design. Nationwide Permit No. 3 is used for authorizing repair,
rehabilitation, or replacement of existing serviceable structures in waters of the United
States, such as bridges and culverted road crossings, when adverse environmental effects are
minimal. Permit conditions for NWP 3 include the following:
• Appropriate soil and erosion controls.
• Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats to minimize soil
disturbance.
• Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and affected areas returned to
preexisting elevations.
• Prevention of live or fresh concrete and uncured concrete bags from coming into
contact with waters of the State until the concrete has been hardened.
• Placement of filter cloth underneath any riprap material used for bank stabilization.
In the event the USACE chooses not to use Nationwide Permit 3, other authorizations are
available, including Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Regional General Permit No. 31.
Based upon the expectation that no impacts to wetlands or surface waters will result from
the proposed action, compensatory mitigation will not be required.
In addition to any permits issued by the USACE, a Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification is required for construction activities which may result in a discharge into
Waters of the United States or for which an issuance of a federal permit or license is
required. Certifications are administered through the North Carolina Department of
4
7 , ., ,

Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality. Water
Quality Certification 3376 is applicable when the USACE issues NWP 3 for maintenance
activities. Permit conditions for this 401 certification include but are not limited to the
following:
All sediment and erosion control measures placed in Waters of the US must be
removed and the original grade restored within two, months after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
Access roads restored to grade immediately after project completion.
Revegetation of the site with native species within three months following
construction or before initiation of the next growing season.
Mitigation
Wetland impacts are expected to be less than 0.1 acres; therefore this project will not require
wetland mitigation. Conversely, because the replacement bridge will be longer than the
existing bridge, fill dirt removed where an old endbent was located may result in wetland
restoration on both banks of Bones Creek UT. To attain this goal, fill must be removed to
surrounding wetland elevation. If wetlands are restored, the NCDOT will generate
restoration credit which can be used for future projects in the same watershed.
Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional , .
protection under separate laws. As of the 11 February 2003 Cumberland County species list,
the USFWS identified six Endangered (E) species, one Threatened M, one Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)], and 29 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) as occurring
in the county. A review of habitat requirements for species listed as threatened or
endangered was completed prior to the field visit (Table 1).
The NCNHP list of May 2003 included the federally listed species referred to above as well
as additional species receiving protection under state laws. Natural Heritage Program maps
were reviewed on November 12, 2003 to determine if any protected species have been
identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no protected species are
known to occur within a two mile radius of the project site.
Due to the need of a 404 water quality permit from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, any potential impacts to federally protected species must be documented and
resolved before a permit is issued.
Based on the November 24, 2003 field investigations, suitable habitat occurs within the
project study area for one listed protected species, pondberry (Lindera meknifolia).
Biological Conclusion: May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for pondberry occurs within potential construction limits of the proposed
bridge replacement project. A reference plant and pedestrian survey were completed on
5
i
March 18, 2004. The reference plant survey was completed prior to the pedestrian survey to
ensure that the search for pondberry in the project study area would be more effective, with
a search image having been firmly fixed in the searchers' minds prior to conducting the
project work. The reference population of pondberry was found at a NCNHP documented
location on White Woods Road in Sampson County. No individuals or colonies were
observed during the plant-by-plant survey at the project study area. Therefore, this species
will not be impacted as a result of project construction. A letter was received dated March
30, 2004 from Garland Pardue of the USFWS concurring with this biological conclusion.
Based on the November 24, 2003 field investigations, no suitable habitat occurs within the
project study area for the following listed protected species:
Biological Conclusions: NO EFFECT
American alligator (Alligator minissippien.ris)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borralis)
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympba mitbellii francisd)
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimacbia aspemlifolia)
Michaux's sumac (Rbus micbauxii)
American chaffseed (Scbwalbea americana)
Recommendations/ Conclusion
The replacement of Bridge No. 74 over Bones Creek UT will likely result in minimal to no
wetland impacts. The project will not have an effect on any federally protected species
listed for Cumberland County.
It is recommended that old fill from the existing bridge endbents be removed to surrounding
wetland elevation for possible restoration of wetlands.
6

Table 1. Endangered and Threatened Species Listed for Cumberland County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Preferred Habitat Habitat Available
Status Status in Study Area
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississipplensis
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoldes borealis
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr
Neonymphe mitheN francisci
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia
Pondberry
Isotrle medeololdes
Undere melissilblia
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachis esperulifopa
Michaux's sumac
American chaffseed
Rhus michauxil
Schwelbea emedcana
Notes:
T(S/A) T Fresh and brackish marshes, ponds, lakes, N
rivers, swamps, bayous, large spring runs
E E Open, mature pine woodlands N
E SR wide, wet meadows dominated by sedges N
and other wetland graminoids
T E open, dry diclduous woods and areas along N
streams with acidic soils
E E bottomland hardwood forests In Inland Y
areas, poorly drained swampy depressions,
Carolina bays, edges of limestone sinks and
ponds closer to the coast, and edges of
swamps, ponds and depressions in forests
of longleaf pine and pond pine
E E edges between longleaf pine upland and N
pond pine
E E-SC full sun or light shade of open stands of oak- N
pine-hickory forest
E E open, moist pine fiatwoods, fire-maintained N
savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty
wetland and xeric sandy soils, and other
open grass-sedge systems
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
FSC Federal Species of A species that may or may not be listed In the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
Concern under consideration for listing for which there Is Insufficient Information to support listing.)
SC Special Concern Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain regulations.
SR Significantly Rare Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
C Candidate Species which are very rare in North Carolina and are substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. They are also rare throughout their ranges and their fate depends on conservation in NC.
These species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened If habitat ?F±ctri irtinn C.ont!n_-es.
` Historic Record The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.

H
I%j
w
w
0
a
It
c
n
r
r?
n
yob b
zr
? Pd r
? y
O H d
zo
t=7 0
r`d a" ?C
p4
z
O
FT-1
Oz
z0
m
V)
? O
??:u
O D
mz
n ?
V)

OD
+
O
z
N -TI D
o? r o
m
O
V)
w
Un
Ql
LD
loo
r- rq
I MA
l
N
\ ?1
m o
I
1 U)
r''? is l -I -i
D D ii

~
n l
;
? ;c -
' Lo LAD ,
I
T I

. w ?o
L')
I N
l
w.
:..? O N N
> r
l ?
,r ? I I I

1
r? m I I f
^ < I

W

Ff ril
\
- - ? l
O7
-o m
?... /
/ z
D Co
F -,u
/ O
I m
l

? I
m?
Co -
I ml
I<- .r ? -I < r
cli
I I
I I 0
h
` .)
-7 Cn
°? l I I° M I z D
Z CA
D i U)? m N
I N I I yyR = D r N
t h'I 4 Co D D
k N+ D :?o n D
O ,f D ?= O
CF) V)
D -?
4 Co
Y1 0? I ! / i ?I
. m I o ;
l ? / I •? D
r 1" % ; r
W
) rr +
i 'I) O r I 7Z ?
?J D
CYI
/ Y rS 1
i r
1 C
O
I 1 ?
® y
O
CV
D
O
-O
O
O
m
eo
-p = O
V) D
-{zo
?Uzm
mm-T,
3:--- F- =
m=
O cn
n?
1- m
FT-1
D =
z(
? " O
C ?,

N
U-1
.Q
Illl
cn
O
Um
V)
C/O
FT I
O
C7
0
m
F-
CC)
G-)
m
O
K
FT
C
C7
C
?s r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 20, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
AUG 3 0 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
041432
Subj ect: Courtesy Notification of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 74 on SR 1402
over Bones Creek unnamed tributary (UT), Cumberland County, NCMA 6011
Please find attached the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form and
related figures for the referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 74 over Bones Creek UT in Cumberland County.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site using existing secondary roads. The
anticipated let date for this proposed project is October 2004. The NCDOT is proceeding with
the project in the knowledge that the proposal is authorized under provisions of Nationwide
Permit No. 3.
The existing structure was built in 1961 and has a sufficiency rating of 43.6, considered
functionally obsolete. The superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists. End bents and interior bents are timber caps on timber piles. The existing structure is 36
feet long and has a clear roadway width of 24 feet. Crown to bed height is 10 feet. The existing
bridge will be removed in accordance with the NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP) for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR). The timber components will be removed without
dropping any components into Waters of the U.S. However, there is potential for small amounts
of concrete components of the bridge to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during demolition.
The potential temporary fill that could result from demolition of the concrete deck is estimated to
be 9.37 cubic yards. Removal of this material following demolition and construction will
proceed with utmost caution.
The recommended replacement structure is a three span bridge approximately 65 feet in
length and approximately 43 feet in width. The approach roadway will hold the existing
horizontal alignment and roadway width. It will also be at approximately the same elevation as
the existing roadway. Deck and roadway drainage will be maintained by utilizing a minimum
grade of 0.3 percent and a minimum cross-slope of 2.0 percent for the proposed structure and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PO BOX 1150 FAX: [phone] Gillesple St.
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28302 Fayetteville, NC 28301
WEBS/TE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STA TE. NC. US
roadway approaches. Current plans also include funnel pipe deck drains to reduce potential for
water and ice-related crashes. Drainage from these funnel pipe drains will flow to rip-rap energy
dissipaters near the bridge abutments and will be diverted away from the stream.
Bones Creek UT is located within the Cape Fear River drainage, subbasin 03-06-15, and
hydrologic unit 03030004. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has
designated a best usage classification for Bones Creek UT of "C" from its source to Little
Rockfish Creek.
There are currently no 303(d) listed streams, high quality waters (HQW), outstanding
resource waters (ORW), or drinking water supply waters (WS-1 and WS-II) within a one
mile radius of the project study area. Bones Creek UT is not a designated anadromous fish
spawning area.
Permanent impacts to Waters of the U. S. include 0.004 acre of fill in wetlands and 0.004
acre of surface water fill where bents will be placed in the channel. Temporary impacts to Bones
Creek UT include disturbing approximately 25 feet of stream channel during removal of existing
end bents. Temporary impacts also include 0.037 acre of mechanized clearing adjacent to
endbents and where a proposed funnel drain will be placed on the northwest corner of the bridge
location. Existing wood pilings will be either pulled out of the channel or cut flush with the
substrate. Turbidity curtains will be installed for bent removal if bents are pulled out.
Construction equipment will be operated from the existing road surface and/or upland areas and
will not enter wetland areas. Measures will be taken to ensure that sediment releases from this
activity will be contained to the immediate location of the pile removal operation. Jurisdictional
wetlands are located immediately adjacent to the existing bridge (Figure 3). The proposed bridge
replacement is a Case 3 demolition project as described by the NCDOT BMP-BDR.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified six Endangered (E)
species, one Threatened (T), one Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)], and 29
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Cumberland County. Threatened and endangered species
for Cumberland County are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Species of Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mithellii francisci E
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulifolia E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Habitat for pondberry exists at the site and a biological conclusion of May Affect - Not Likely
to Adversely Affect was concluded. A March 30, 2004 letter from the USFWS concurring with
this biological conclusion is attached for your consideration.
This courtesy notification is submitted to keep you informed of the NCDOT's activities
that intersect with jurisdictional waters of the U.S. After your review of the information, please
forward a copy of the NWP-3 tear sheet for our records. We anticipate that 401 General Water
Quality Certification No. 3376 will be authorized by the NCDWQ. The NCDOT will comply
with all conditions of NWP-3 and the 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions
or comments concerning the project, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your
time and assistance.
incerX.R2erko
James Division Environmental Officer
Attachments
PCN
USFWS letter
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
Figure 2 Project Topography
Figure 3 Waters of the US
Permit Drawings
Stream and wetland forms
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Mike Summers, P.E., Bridge Maintenance
Ms. Julie Gibson, Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
04 1432
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: 3
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
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Highway Division 6 (mail) Highway Division 6 (delivery)
PO Box 1150 558 Gillespie St.
Fayetville, NC 28302 Fayetteville, NC 28301
Attn: Terry R. Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: tgibson6Ddot.state.nc.us
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: James J. Rerko
Company Affiliation: NCDOT Division 6 Environmental Officer
Mailing Address: PO Box 1150
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: jjrerko(adot.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 prof ect: Replacement of Bridge No. 74 on SR 1402 over Bones Creek UT
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NCMA 6011
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fenix
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Fayetteville: 401 south -
after passing the town of Fenix turn right onto SR 1402 (Rim Road).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 035"02'9.14"N 079"02'54.28"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): 1.43 acres (estimated based on 1,036-foot length project and 60-foot
wide right-of-way)
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Bones Creek UT
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.eiir.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Existing bridge crossing Bones Creek UT surrounded by
Page 6 of 12
bottomland swamp forest community, with upland consisting of loblolly pine dominated
mixed pine-hardwood forest. The surrounding l_and use is residential.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
existing structure is a 36 foot long bridge composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists with end bents and interior bents of timber caps on timber piles. Existing bents and
piles will be removed and new endbents and piles will be poured on site. The recommended
structure is a 2-span 65 foot long bridge composed of reinforced concrete with concrete end
bents and interior bents. Traffic will be maintained by a five mile off-site detour. Equipment
to be used includes standard bridge construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Remove Bridge No. 74 over Bones Creek UT
and replace with a new bridge structure on the existing location. The existing structure has
been given a sufficiency rating of 43.6 and a status of functionally obsolete.
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.
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
Page 7 of 12
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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent impacts to Waters of the
_U S include 0.004 acre of fill in wetlands from the fill slope being extended and 0.004 acre
of surface water fill where bents will be placed in the channel. Temporary impacts to Bones
Creek UT include disturbing approximately 25 feet of stream channel during removal of
existing end bents and 0.037 acre of mechanized clearing adjacent to the roadway. Existing
wood pilings will either be pulled out of the channel or cut flush with the substrate.
Turbidity curtains will be installed for bent removal if bents are pulled out. Construction
equipment will be operated from the existingi road surface and/or upland areas and will not
enter wetland areas.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact Located within
100-year Floodplain** Distance to
Nearest Stream
Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma acres es/no linear feet
1. Wetland fill 0.004 Y 0 Bottomland swamp forest

2. Temporary
(Mechanized
0.037
Y
0
Bottomland swamp forest
Clearing)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, graatng, 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 hyp://www.fema.gov.
*** 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: 2.05 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.004 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream Perennial or
Intermittent?
indicate on ma linear feet Before Impact leasespecify)

3. Temporary
impact (Bent
25
Bones Creek UT
25 feet
Perennial
removal)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not hatted to: culverts and associatea rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
Page 8 of 12
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.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.manguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 25 (temporary impact)
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 Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
indicate on ma acres bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
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.
Imnacts will be avoided or minimized by replacing the bridle in place, having an off-site detour,
diverting_stormwater into funnel drain (no deck drains over open water), and no equipment will
be in wetlands. The new bridge will be approximately 29 feet longer than the old bridge, thus
endbents will be moved farther away from the waters edge, increasing the floodplain area under
the bridge. Turbidity curtains will be installed when pilings are removed if they are pulled out.
Page 9 of 12
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.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/stmi.ide.htni1.
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.
N/A
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://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htn. 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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
" Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 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.
Existing impervious acreage totals approximately 0.28 acre and proposed impervious acreage
totals approximately 0.41 acre of the total 1.43 acres on the site. Stormwater controls include
dissipater pads (rip rap) at the outlet pipes (no deck drains over open water).
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).
Field investigations were conducted to assess habitat presence for protected species in Cumberland
County. There is suitable habitat in the project area for pondberry (Lindera melissi olia). A letter was
received dated March 30, 2004 from Garland Pardue of the USFWS concurring with the biological
conclusion May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
9 Aq It,
?Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
March 30, 2004
Julie Gibson
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
P.O. Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636
Dear Ms. Gibson:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 22, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 74 on SR 1402 over UT to Bones
Creek and Bridge No. 11 on SR 2008 over UT to Locks Creek in Cumberland County, North
Carolina may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered pondberry
(Lindera melissifolia). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, plant surveys were conducted at the project sites in
March 2004. No specimens of pondberry were observed. Based on the information provided
and other information available, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed
bridge replacements may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect pondberry. We believe that
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this species. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
?O -arland B. AdLue, Ph.D.
f "Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
lam
a
a a
474 6 d
a7 %
38 2
` -3477 -
3479
3804
? 3122
895 --
2893 J 3440
Bev" A 3519 347

7 350
sMn,aK
Dr..
?
7
7 i

479 Fm F«„ ?.
3518 >?p P
3688 3521 F I R I
i
i
--- --•- ---• 3 - 3 23-"8174 --.
01
,."Xw
Dr.
R
^m,?ood
%-1398 Ave. 1303 M
ck.

98 p••
_ 1394
-3570 Bt
?
Rrr?µyd
3589

'3803 4f d/
gNq
Q
P a
1400 359 -?-?
Qv.
`r? InOCfl,Barrle9r ??J 7?
0d
r
} Wa 8
,.

-ymms I 87
.a,a
c M LFRLAN
, 1 s 1,
e X18 3883 3884/
L 3 P 3413 i
1517
a.
1 i
? k to ?? 38 9 3881 3862!
wbm
3442 3444
J i
TWIN
ad
3445
R
? s J
i,
3446 J N S F 3M ;' 11 ?- 3 a.
CWW*
402
MAWi
Lek 403
Fenix g
589
1
i b
1 3748
?•.\ 401 /? %? 3747
=nog, PROJECT VICINITY
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 74 ON SR 1402
OVER UT To Bones Creek
NORTH CAROLINA MOVING AHEADI
MA6011
I
,
0 miles 0.25 milN 0,
.5
FIGURE 1
a, V.
• Y I. M
• A. r ` y ' t y?
f
r ?..•• y ?, T(a or 2P
4 1 ? ? Q
,I r
1593 •• ? Y
A• ??/ M
• i
))jam ??• •\ • ?../T 1
.? R • •
, lry •
+ .? .•?••^ ? • • ? • ? •. t• i 1301
Y •
MA6011 `?_?•
• 14W • . L='
lie-
i
• • h11 Hatl?
• ' •ar
? a - ?.
uoo .• •r
- a
•223 Gmv ji` •• • ' G.?-?_ -? ••
1103 ? •? ? '}
• ? r
J
PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY
MA6011 Figure No.
LI*MULKEY
Bridge No. 74 On SR 1402 Over Bones Creek
ENOINEERB & CONSULTANTS
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:24000 //?
® Feet 2
-_ Fr• 0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
IgRIMt USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Clifdale
Contour Interval 10 Feet
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
- - - - -APPROXIMATE ROAD LOCATION
STUDY CORRIDOR
WA?
WB
?°-V AC
-'-MULKEY WETLANDS SCALE: Figure No.
c«m«ccw.. ao«. u?rw«r.
MA6011 1" = 150'
.,.,.
Bridge No. 74 On SR 1402 Prepared For:
Over UT To Bones Creek
Cumberland County - nolmiJ?,
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
- LEGEND
---JLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
® IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
ROOTWAD
WATER
• • • •
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•• • • • CLEARING
-? -? FLOW DIRECTION
TB
_ TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- '7 - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
DENOTES AREA TO BE EXCAVATED
NCD,Wn JL
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: MA-6011
REPLACE BRIDGE "74
ON SR 1402 OVER
TRIBUTARY TO BONES CREEK
SHEET OF
2-25-0,

RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 1
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 2
V)
C)
C?''

H
t.o
v.
0
1
H
C)
?P5
rj) L.
H n Y
°?? y d
Z C o
v ~ H
- C
CT7

z
O
-1
m
Oz
z O
?o
Z P-1
Un
D 0
?-u
Ov
C-
mz
r- r-
O ,-
_o
m

D
Co
+ -?
O O
0
U)
v

w
-, Ln
CT)
LD

I
Www
rV 0o Cp
C. i ,. O N rv l I
i
I I ; I
1 -{ m l l '
< V„ I
Tlq.
rim '
cu V!
O
Z
N
a ?I
°
m
\ I
f-1
.,
I
=6 m
r
? Z
1n1,. / D CO
? Z

M-A
--
mCU
h
m;l
<r
W I

"Ll..... ........... ....,
J `
70 o o
c:> v ?r I $ /' N z
f?l m r p
h 'b I / m co
m u
/ / r'4 r i? O D >
woo z
I -
/ m N
D ?
--I M
l / O CO
Vl m
r- A)
O F
-u I u..
p
;j (n m ( W
ti r- r- v +
' O r to
m LA
LTI
r-
I o ...
0
?G-)
W
S•
0)
D
O
LA
N
N
?D
0
U)
D
0
0
O
m
c?z
U = O
U1 D
-Izo
?:Uzm
Frl FT-1
D?z
m
0
--T-1 =
O V)
? m
O?
mm
D =
7U O
z°
OW
f0?
V
U-1
Ln
O
un
CA
C/)
m
.o
C)
O
C7
00
TU
0
cu
m
C?
0
K
z
0
.FT I
U)
-I
C
?7
FT?

.I'. ... 1 ..i ...I i v ' i 1. I
x';p {

.., .. ...y_..ff?. a

. 1 ? .

. ?

...1

_.i

1

t. 1

1..

4

. .i i..

) 41
1

_

O

4 E

:
-
I

1

I
U

: I ? ? V

z

I

.I f I... i a !

I ?
1
?
.
..1

.

{

y l i

k l: !

1 (

}

? ?

I 1

1 ?

?

.. l
41

'

J

fl i 1 °- 1
- t 1
? j - j i I
1 _
l
f1
I d +
?? i
-
r
I
i
l -.
Lc k
+I.

I I
i 2 t

L(7) k .
-
TF
1 --d -L... 4 LQJ,Q .
-
t-..
{
.._
1
i
1
I
j , ..
i i t f } 1 1 y?I

I I ?.11_ ?tl O f
NF
?7
T
I I i
?
m
j I?
I t i
I
i j

}
l
I !

i
1 1

i
i
? I
1
I
f

? I.

. f 1?

Ij
! f I
I
14

Cl)
W
z
~ O
J fV W
W -?
?
`. co a: U w
CO H ?
?
a w
d
z
LL z
z? ?o
< m 0(0 ? m
Cl) O U Q
= 02 *O

c
U-
c °-a
zz
W
w0
m?
Ir
wm
?5 ?
cc
U
0 O U
CL
z
m w w W
0 ?
a ? _. m O
C
G -?
U
., T
? Z
C
G 2
U
W
/?
cn
F-

V Cl)
G
Q Z
O
(L 5 L
C
v
c
c W U
w i
a
m
L
.
r-
E
LL .. o
a
v A
U
Iw- a
E

LL.
+
rt

cc U
N m C
I-
U
c U)
a W
ll CO C
V Cl)
U
? r w
(q Q
Z

'USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NC 05T 2. Evaluator's name:.
Z
3. Date of evaluation: z 0 ??+ y 4. Time of evaluation:- lam
5. Name of stream: U0 ?+ Pay ? -Cr 6. River basin: Cr.. FP,r-
7. Approximate drainage area:
r
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order. ??
10. County: cb-111b'slal-w-s
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho `(Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note r y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: C Gli
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 ,-Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial LSL% Agricultural
-?V % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: - ( 5(, 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): -
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
continent section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date I1-z l/- 03
This channel evaluation form ryvthe nded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required Unite d States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form Is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: MA6011 County: Cumberland
Nearest Road: Rim Road Date: 1112412003
Wetland Area (ac): acres Wetland Width (ft): -150'
Name of Evaluator(s): J. Gi son

WETLAND LOCATION: ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1 mile upstream, ups lope or radius)
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake x forested/natural vegetation 80 %
x on perennial steam x agricultural/ urbanized 20 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream divide Adjacent Special Natural Areas
other
SOILS: DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: Johnston loam 1 Pinus taeda
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2 Arundinaria Qigantea
x predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3 Acer rubrum
predominantly sandy 4 Liquidambar styraci/lua
HYDRAULIC FACTORS: FLOODING AND WETNESS:
x freshwater x semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
x Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 4 X 4.00 = 16
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 3 X 4.00 = 12
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 5 * X 5.00 = 25
WILDLIFE HABITAT 5 X 2.00 = 10
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT 4 X 4.00 = 16
RECREATION/EDUCATION 2 X 1.00 = 2
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 81
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HNoo
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 11/24/2003
County: Cumberland
State: NC
Community ID: upland
TransectID:
Plot ID: WAI
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicat Dominant Plant Species Stratum n i ator
1. Cyrilla raceme/lora understory FACW 9. Quercus alba understory FACU
2. Quercus niAra understory FAC 10.
3. Liquidambar sryraci lua understory FAC IL
4. Liriodendron tulipifera understory FA C+ 12.
5. Gaylussacia frondosa shrub FAC 13.
6. Myrica cerifera shrub FAC 14.
7. Pinus taeda overstory FAC 15.
8. Liqustrum sinense shrub FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011 Date: 11/24/2003
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Cumberland
Investigator(s): J. Gibson State: NC

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WAI
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum is Dominant Plant Species Stratu nd' ato
1. Pinus taeda overstory FAC 9. Magnolia virginiana shrub FACW+
2. Quercus nigra understory FAC 10. Rex glabra shrub FACW
3. Liquidambar styraci/Jua understory FAC 11.
4. Vaccinium coryumbosum understory FACW 12.
5. flex opaca understory FAC 13.
6. Cyri/la racemifJora shrub FACW 14.
7. Smilx rotundifolia vine FAC 15.
8. Pteridium aqui/iftum herb FA CU 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 90010
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Rernarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _
x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse)
" area un er a:
pe
Yes Date: 11/24/2003
Yes No
Yes HNo

County: Cumberland
State: NC
Community ID: PFO
Transect ID:
Plot ID: WB20
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species ra u I icat r Dominant Plant Species Stratum ato
1. Pinus ineda overstory FAC 9.
2. Arundinaria gigantea herb FACW 10.
3. Liquidambarstyraeillua understory FAC 11.
4. Magnolia virginiana shrub FACW+ 12.
5. Acer rubrum understory FAC 13.
6. Myrica cerifera shrub FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
passes FAC-Neutral test
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
x Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: MA 6011
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): J. Gibson
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 1 1 /24/2003
County: Cumberland
State: NC
Community ID: trpland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: WB27
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species tratu Indicator
1. Pinus taeda overstory FAC 9.
2. Quercus falcata understory FAC 10.
3. Liquidambarstyraei/lua understory FAC IL
4. Cornus Jlorida understory FA CU 12.
5. Ilex Alabra shrub FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Wagram loam, sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Arenic Kandiudult Confirm Ma
d T
? Y
F_N
ppe
ype
es
o
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A JOYR411 LS
4-14+ B 2.5Y514 JOYR518 faint, few LS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
A horizon 50150 mix, not dark enough to be 70130 coated/uncoated sand grains
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydropbytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
plot taken -10' uphill of WB27Jlag
Approved by HQUJACE 3192
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston loam Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes F_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 2.5Y412 SL
4-10 BI 2.5Y312 SL
10-12+ B2 2.5Y412 SL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
plot taken --10' downhill of WB20 flag (not at WB27 flog b/c too many shadows, getting dark, not enough sunlight)
I I
ApprOVeo Dy HQUSACt 3/Y1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston loam Drainage Class:
Field Observations
) Cumulic Humaque
(Sub
rou
t
Taxonom Confirm Ma
ed T
e? Yes RN.
g
p
p
y pp
yp
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 Oi rbric
2-10 A IOYR311 SL
10-14+ B IOYR411 SCL, oxidized root channels
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
A horizon 50150 mix, not dark enough to be 70130 coated/uncoated sand grains
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? [Yes] No
Remarks:
plot taken -10' downhill ofWAl flag
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
WILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Wagram loamy sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
) Arenic Kandiuduh
(Sub
rou
Taxonom Confirm Ma
ed T
e? Yes FN ],
p
y
g pp
yp
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 Oi fibric
2-4 A IOYR211 LS
4-14+ B IOYR512 LS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
A horizon 60140 mix, not dark enough to be 70130 coated/uncoated sand grains
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
plot taken -10' uphill of WAI flag
I I
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
J ? j x ?drf L ,t ?T L?! }'4M ' ?y}3 _ r y ;f n
CHARACTERISTICSr, Tj O
L'COREGI 1V POIN
T RANGE
n , .
Coastal "1'Iedmont Ioun
.

1. Presence of flow./ persistent pools in stream ,..
-
t no flow or saturation= 0• strong flow = max points 0 4 xo s
yy''t 5

2 `. Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• iio alteration = max''
i
i
0
o
n
s
: 3 Riparian zone,:
` no buffer = 0 contiguous, wide buffer, max oints
0 6 „
0 4'} } F
(" 0 5 X V ^

l(O
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 5 +
` extensive dischaz es = 0' ho dischaz es = max omts 4 0 4

5 Groundwater discharge,
'
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc.'= max points 0 3 >L 0 4 r; 0 4
? r - 3
6 Presence of adjacent floodplam .,'

4 ;?
J, 4

0 4
r

1 sF
U
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max omts ,. H " 2y
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
,,n

dee 1 entrenched = 0• f
w
fl
di
:

0 s lT k

'z,
0 4

0 2-

S
re
ent
oo
ng
= max omts ?
+ 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0• lar e'ad'acent wetlands = max omts `
0 5
U 4 "t
, 0' 2?Lt?i
rn...;
9 ...Channel sinuosity ..
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander = max points
0 s
0 4
10 Sediment Input
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment =maze points) 0 s , 0 4 r ,., ley
0 - 4
r

K
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate • ,
f
="
'
rr `;'8' * ;?}`
y ,
?' µ U 4 w?
?, t
. ine homogenous
0• large, diverse sizes= max
points) `

7{'
12 ,Evidence of channel Incision or widening;
(d
in
e
l
i
•
0 S 4 0 _r5
e
p
y
c
sed = 0
stable bed & banks = max oints ,y 1'k
13 Presence of major bank failures r•:

i
• n
'
ro
e +

0 s

0 stir = L n
g
;
9
A

/
I
severe eros
on = 0
o
e
sio stable banks, m
x. omts ?? ?, , k
L"r , `s
JJJ?,
`?M ,!1j
tt??4, ?j

?:. A4., : Root depth and density on banks

s
no visible roots = 0 d
houti
root
th

3
:0 "r?r

tl
..t;. ense
s
rou
max omts i
15 '=t Impact by agriculture,: Uvestock, or timbe production
substantial im act =0• n
id
nc
s
C
S
?' ??b 4
5
e
e max omt
o ev
?1 t? Y , 4;W?e :+
w
??: S
l6 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complezes?
no riffles/
il
l
• -
0 ° tl3f? ` ts' x .
;? ti
r
es or poo
s 0
well-develo ed maizoints ,
Q'. 1 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0• fre rent 'varied habitats = m
x
'
0 - 6
e> 0- 6:
a
points
18 Canopy coverage over streambedf;: ?
no shading vegetation = 0' continuous cano = max omts ' f 05?,
; ? 1 ,Y
"0.773' } r:
1 0
3S :

' 19 a jr '.n :Substrate embeddedness
a rs

de ' 1 embedded 0 loose struc i
ture inax
tf

;r
?,ti', 0 -4-

4
6`

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) uat r
no evidence a 0• common numerous "et s max omis ?;?t U.- 4
` - 3
f S

D 21 Presence of amphibians
no evid
= 0•
o
? n
; =
x
0 - 4
0
4
0 - 4 gay '
.?' ence
c
mno
umerous type
ma
points ; -
r., h ?8 ti r*y l y€,

22
- ??
Presence of fish
' no evidence= 0• common numerous ty0es = max omts
4
0 - 4
E r ` , "*
? 0 r4
" 23 Evidence of wildlife use kr ?? ur ,, ?,, y

r 1
! no evidence 0 abundant evidence = max omts
13 t > r .
L> S 6 i 44"N ¢?n J F n+. .1SWl + r 9 P 1 X`? t `%,
n s ,r i + +,rf 1 Total points Possible
?r
a
?'?'
0 "
? + e!.1y
E, Y f •
1?'?' ? ,tf b
C
?
`

! .
?{
_
?
?
i il
t i
., ? • 1( IP ; ?u?
h
ti'r .
1.?(' it y(pM.? 1 ?. I.. 1 I ?i ? r?7 V1 ? !-?:f2?.n. ?j L?• Ti 4!fGw??iN `?ytII 4. ???? ?
d{
,-'TOTAL SCORE ; a1s0 enter on first page "'?
' 11

i F
W .p. - r. ,A. +.rr•,i,,, :s,'}c:,',+LbytS! .J, J ., O
----•....-.. ...v uv..w?wu,.u 1.1 VUUa L61 JU rU1115.