20050649 Ver 1_Site Plan_20020228

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Bridge No. 19 on NC 210 over
Stones Creek
Onslow County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4215
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 00-ES-12
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
OF TR
January 2002
o%NO RTH Cq~
O~
iZ
~,
r r
..~ f ~*,
`-{ 1
fEB 2 82002

1

LI
1
1

u
n
1

n

C

0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Qualifications ................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Definitions .................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3
2.1 Soils .............................................................................................................3
2.2 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 7
3.1 Terrestrial .....................................................................................................7
3.2 Aquatic ........................................................................................................10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................................11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ...........................................................................12
4.2 Permit Issues ................................................................................................13
4.3 Protected Species .........................................................................................15
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area for B-4215 .......................................9
Table 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected From Stones Creek .........................................11
Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters ...............................................................13
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for Onslow County, NC ........................................15
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Onslow County, NC ..............................21
1

Bridge No. 19 on NC 210 over Stones Creek
' Onslow County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4215

' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
' 19 on NC Highway 210 over Stones Creek in Onslow County, North Carolina.
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) was provided with a project study area depicted on an
aerial photograph and was asked to complete a Natural Resource Technical Report in order
to assess the existing environmental conditions of the identified project study area. The
study area for B-4215 is approximately 10.52 acres (4.26 hectares) in size based on the
' map provided by the NCDOT.
1.2 Purpose
' The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of existing natural resources in the
project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
' assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions
of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an
' evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction; 3) a preliminary
assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 3) a preliminary determination
of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped project study
' area and does not take into account the final design or limits of construction.
' 1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
' number of sources. The Sneads Ferry, NC (1988), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute topographic map was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess
' landscape characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping was also consulted to determine what potential wetland types
may be encountered in the field. The Soi/ Survey of Ons/ow County, North Caro/ina (USDA
' 1992-, and recent aerial photography 11 inch = 100 feet) furnished by the NCDOT were
also used in the evaluation of the project study area.

1
u

u

1
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands.
Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field
verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et a/. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 19871. Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et a/. (1979).
' Water resource information for Stones Creek was derived from the most recent versions of
the White Oak River Basinwide Water Qua/ity Plan (DWQ 19971, Basin wide Assessment
Report-White Oak River Basin (DWQ 20001, and several NC Division of Water Quality
' (DWQ) Internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data.
' The most current FWS list (April 12, 2001) of federal protected species with ranges
extending into Onslow County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation. In
' addition, NHP records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were
consulted before commencing the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife were documented, and expected population distributions were determined
' through observations of available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in
Martof et a/. (19801, Webster et a/. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et a/.
' (1994), and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
Information regarding Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species was requested via a
' letter to Mr. David Cox of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) dated August
7, 2001.
' Additional information regarding construction moratoria has been requested from the NC
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) and NCWRC.
' 1.4 Qualifications
' The field investigation associated with B-4215 was conducted on 27 August 2001 by ESI
staff. Jeff Harbour is the Project Manager for this Natural Resource Investigation and
' supervised the field investigation. Mr. Harbour has a B.S. in Marine Science and has more
than nine years of professional experience. Mr. Harbour is also a Professional Wetland
Scientist (No. 0001204) as certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists. Additional ESI
2

' staff involved with the field investigation include Josh Witherspoon, Kevin Lapp, and
Charles Kaufman. Mr. Witherspoon has a B.S. in Natural Resources and more than six
' years of professional experience. He is also a North Carolina Soil-Scientist-in-Training. Mr.
Lapp has a M.S. in Biology, more than three years of professional experience, and has been
' certified in Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols by the DWQ. Mr. Kaufman has a B.S. in
Marine Biology and more than 1 year of professional experience.
1.5 Definitions
The project study area is approximately 1700 feet (518 m) in length and widths range from
90 feet (27 m) at the terminus to approximately 420 feet (128 m) at the existing bridge.
The project study area is located on NC 210 over Stones Creek in Onslow County, North
' Carolina. The bridge is located approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 km) east of the intersection of
US 17 and NC 210.
The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 km) on all sides of the
project study area.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area is located in the lower Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly
level. Elevations in the project study area range from sea level to approximately 20 feet
(6.1 m) above mean sea level (USGS 19881. The project study area consists of existing
maintained right-of-way, urban disturbed areas, mixed hardwood forest, pine/hardwood
forest, and clearcut areas.
The existing land use within the project vicinity includes a mixture of residential areas and
undisturbed land.
2.1 Soils
The project study area crosses four soil-mapping units (USDA 1992). These mapping units
include Muckalee loam (Typic Fluvaquents), Marvyn loam (Typic Hapludults), Baymeade
fine sand (Arenic Hapludults), and Pactolus fine sand (Aquic Quartzipsamments). Hydric
soils mapped as occurring within the project study area include only the Muckalee series.
Nonhydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions mapped as occurring within the project
study area include the Marvyn series, Baymeade series, and Pactolus series. The Marvyn
series is well drained but may contain inclusions of the hydric Muckalee series in narrow
3

' drainageways. The Baymeade series is well drained but may contain inclusions of the
hydric Leon and Muckalee series in narrow depressions and drainageways. The Pactolus
' series is moderately well drained but may contain inclusions of the hydric Leon series in
small depressions.
' From a broader perspective, the project study area is located in one soil association, the
Muckalee-Dorovan association (USDA 1992). This soil association contains nearly level,
' poorly drained soils that are loamy throughout and very poorly drained soils that are muck
throughout.
' 2.2 Water Resources
' Stream Characteristics
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030502 of the White Oak River Basin
' (DWQ 2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030001 (USGS 1974). Stones Creek
is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement
' project. Stones Creek originates south of the project study area near NC 172 and flows
northeast to its confluence with the New River at Stones Bay. Stones Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 19-30-3 by the DWQ from its source to Stones Bay.
' Stones Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of mud,
sand, and silt. Bottomland hardwood forest is adjacent to the stream channel. The
' channel ranges from approximately 15 to 30 feet 15 to 9 m) wide and depths are estimated
to range from 1 to 6 feet (0.3 to 2 m). Preliminary observations indicate that this
' particular section of Stones Creek may represent an "C" type channel pursuant to Rosgen
(1996).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. Stones Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of SA HQW (DEM
1993, DWQ 2001) from its source to Stones Bay. The SA designation indicates tidal salt
waters suitable for shellfishing for market purposes as well as primary recreation, aquatic
' life propagation and survival, fishing, and wildlife. The HWQ supplemental designation
indicates waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through division monitoring or special studies. The portion of Stones Creek
' located within the project study area appears to be a freshwater stream. The tidal salt
water influence is likely more prevalent closer to its confluence with Stones Bay.
The entire length of Stones Creek is considered "Coastal Waters" (NCMFC 2001).
"Coastal Waters" include: the Atlantic Ocean; the various coastal waters; and estuarine
4

1
1

1

1

waters up to the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters
agreed upon by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) and the NCWRC (NCMFC
2001-. The portion of Stones Creek within the project study area is not considered a
primary nursery area pursuant to NC Fisheries Rules for Coastal Waters (NCMFC 2001). A
portion of Stones Creek near the confluence with Stones Bay is considered a primary
nursery area (NCMFC 2001). No shellfish beds were observed during the field
investigation.
Stones Creek is classified as a HQW from its source to Stones Bay. The HQW
supplemental designation indicates waters that are rated as excellent based on biological
and physical/chemical characteristics through DWQ monitoring or special studies. No
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS 1, or WS-II Waters occur within 3.0 miles (4.8
km) upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using
the structure and health of fish communities. Between 1994 and 1999, monitoring
stations in the 5 subbasins of the White Oak River Basin were sampled to determine overall
water quality. No sampling stations are located on Stones Creek based on the most recent
Basinwide Assessment Report (DWQ 2000). The closest benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring station is located on the New River at Sneads Ferry, approximately 8 miles (13
km) downstream from the project study area. The New River near Sneads Ferry has been
sampled nine times since 1983. Salinity is generally high and taxa richness has generally
climbed over time. Compared with reference sites in other subbasins, the Biotic Index at
the New River site near Sneads Ferry indicates slightly depressed water quality (DWQ
1997).
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
"those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity" (NMFS 1999). For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters"
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
"substrate'° includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a
sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and
"spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
5

' (NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on
EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g1 mandatory contents include: a description of the
proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action
agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect
includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR
600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption),
indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity, site-specific or habitat-
, wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
During agency review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
project, the COE makes the initial determination of whether or not a proposed project "may
adversely affect" EFH. This determination by the COE is submitted to the NMFS for their
' review and comment. NMFS will then determine if additional consultation is necessary
regarding the proposed project or if they concur with COE's decision.
Any significant stream or river in a county under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) may be considered EFH unless otherwise documented by the
' NMFS. ESI has reviewed the current species list prepared by the NMFS pertaining to EFH,
and all listed species are either marine or estuarine species. The portion of Stones Creek
within the project study area is classified as "Coastal Waters" by the NCMFC. This portion
' of Stones Creek may be considered EFH by COE and NMFS.
' Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
' discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
' subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ 1997). Stormwater point source discharges
include Stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges
associated with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina
must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the
' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Within subbasin 030502 there are now three
major NPDES dischargers out of the total 32 permitted dischargers (DWQ 2000, DENR
' 2001). No NPDES dischargers are located on Stones Creek. Additionally, no major NPDES
dischargers are documented as occurring in the downstream receiving waters of the
project study area. Four of the five discharging facilities at Camp Lejeune ceased
discharging in 1998 (DWQ 2000). The remaining discharger is located on the New River,
upstream from the Stones Creek confluence.

6

' Runoff from the road surface and nearby residential areas may contribute non-point source
discharge to Stones Creek.
' Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) can minimize impacts
during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Development
activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or local erosion and
sedimentation control program approved in accordance with 15 NCAC 4B .0218, and
which drain to and are within one mile of HQW shall be required to follow stormwater
management rules as specified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000. stormwater management
requirements are described in 15A NCAC 2H .1006.
Other im acts to water ualit such as chan es in water tem erature as a result of
p q Y 9 p
' increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, can be
anticipated as a result of this project if roadway or bridge surface area increases.
However, due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding areas,
impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
' resources/organisms. Specific moratorium dates will be determined by the NCWRC and
the NCDCM.
' 3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial
Existing Vegetation Patterns
' Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified
from the NHP classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions
~ ,

C
[7
G

written to reflect local variations within the project study area. Three natural plant
communities occur within the project study area and one community results from human
activities. These communities total approximately 10.19 acres (4.13 ha), which does not
include the open water attributed to Stones Creek.
Pine/Hardwood Forest -Pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 1.16 acres (0.47 ha)
[11.4 percent] of the project study area. This plant community is primarily located west of
the existing bridge. Tree species consist of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and water oak (Quercus nigra). Midstory and shrub species
consist of red maple (Ater rubrum), American holly (//ex opaca), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), and buckeye (Aesculus Pavia). Groundcover species consist of Japanese
honeysuckle ILonicera japonica) and jessamine (Ge/semium sempervirens).
Mixed Hardwood Forest -Mixed hardwood forest covers approximately 2.80 acres (1.14
ha) [27.5 percent] of the project study area. This plant community is located on the higher
slopes above the floodplain of Stones Creek. Tree species include water oak, laurel oak
(Quercus /aurifo/ia-, red maple, sweetgum, sycamore (P/antanus occidenta/is), and
American beech (Fagus grandifo/ia). Shrub species consist of wax myrtle, American holly,
and buckeye. Groundcover species include Japanese honeysuckle, bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), and jessamine.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest -Coastal plain bottomland hardwood forest
covers approximately 2.28 acres (0.92 ha) [22.4 percent] of the project study area. This
community type is located at lower elevations that the mixed hardwood forest, which is
primarily upland habitat. Dominant tree species include laurel oak (Quercus /aurifo/ia), red
maple, sweetgum, ironwood (Carpinus taro/iniana), swamp tupelo (Nyssa bif/ora-,
sycamore (P/antanus occidenta/is-, American elm (U/mus americana) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsy/vanica). Shrub species consist of wax myrtle, elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), tag alder (A/nus serru/ata), and dwarf palmetto (Baba/ minor). Herbaceous
species consist of sedges (Carex spp.), cardinal flower (Lobe/ia cardina/is1, netted chain-
fern (Woodwardia areo/ata), and jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphy//um). Coastal plain
bottomland hardwood forest are periodically flooded, although the duration is much less
than that experienced in other wetland types such as cypress-gum swamps.
clearcut Area -The clearcut area covers approximately 0.86 acre (0.35 ha) [8.4 percent]
of the project study area. This area appears to have originally been vegetated with
hardwood species, likely the same species as in the adjacent mixed hardwood forest
community. What appears to be a utility easement runs parallel with NC 210 in this
clearcut area. IVo significant amount of intact vegetation occurs in the clearcut area.

C

1
Maintained/Disturbed Land -Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 3.09 acres
(1.25 ha) [30.3 percent] of the project study area. Maintained/disturbed land within the
project study area include: roadways, roadsides, maintained residential yards, powerline
rights-of-way, and areas where other human related activities dominate the landscape.
Roadsides and rights-of-way are typically maintained by mowing and/or herbicides.
Species observed within the road right-of-ways include Japanese honeysuckle, red maple,
various grasses, loblolly pine, and blackberry (Rubus argutus).
The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on an aerial photograph
base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community within the
project study area is presented in Table 1. This does not take into account the final
alignment and actual right-of-way width, which will result in much less impact than the
acreages presented below.
Table 1. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4215.
Plant Community Approximate Amount in Acres (hectares)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.16 (0.47)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 2.80 (1.14)
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest 2.28 (0.92)
Clearcut Area 0.86 (0.35}
Maintained/Disturbed Land 3.09 (1.25)
Total 10.19 (4.13)
Note: Total does not include the 0.33 acre (0.13 ha) of open water attributed to Stones Creek.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Very little
terrestrial wildlife was observed within the project study area. Mammals expected to
occur in and around the project study area include raccoon (Procyon /otor), marsh rabbit
(Sy/vi/agus pa/ustris), white-tailed deer (Odocoi/eus virginanus), black bear (Ursus
americanus-, and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Very few terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Reptile species
observed include black racer (Co/uber constrictor) and green anole (Ano/is caro/inensis).
Other reptile species expected to occur in and around the project study area include
eastern box turtle 1 Terrapene caro/ina), rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivus-, ground
skink (Scincella lateralis), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
9

' No terrestrial or aboreal amphibians were observed within the project study area.
Terrestrial or aboreal amphibians expected to occur in and around the project study area
include such species as southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/aria), and spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer).
Avian species observed within the project study area include great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), belted kingfisher (Cery/e a/c yon), and green heron (Butorides virescens). Other
' species expected to occur in and around the project study area include such species as
snowy egret (Egretta thu/a), great egret (Ardea alba-, common yellowthroat (Geothlypis
trichas), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and
' various warblers (Dendroica spp.).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study area are typically adapted to
life in or around fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be minor. Due to the
lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed project will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife
movement corridors are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
3.2 Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Stones Creek and the
adjacent littoral fringe, where regular flooding is evident. This littoral fringe is vegetated
with such aquatic species as pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata-, cattail (Typha /atifo/ia),
giant tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides-.
Kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, and electroshocking were limited due to the unstable
substrate. Visual observation of stream banks and channel within the project study area
were conducted along Stones Creek to document the aquatic community. The unstable
substrate prevented the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker, thus limiting the results
of the fisheries survey.
t Aquatic Wildlife
' Fish species documented in Stones Creek during the field investigation include eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia ho/brookil and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Additional species
that likely utilize this section of Stones Creek include yellow bullhead (/cta/urus nata/is),
pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus). Menhinick (1991) documents bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchi//il
' and the Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) from Stones Creek and adjacent Stones
Bay. Coastal streams are often used by anadromous fish species such as striped bass
(Morone saxatillis) and shad (Alosa spp. and Dorosoma spp.). Anadromous fish may occur
10
1

' in Stones Creek. Menhinick (1991) does not document any of these species from Stones
Creek, but does document these species from the adjacent New River system. Menhinick
(1991) does not document either the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) or the
shortnose sturgeon (A, brevirostruml as occurring in Stones Creek; however, he does
document the Atlantic sturgeon from the New River Inlet area. ESI has contacted the
NCWRC, NCDCM, and NCDMF via letters dated August 7 and 8, 2001 regarding pertinent
fisheries information within the project study area. Additionally, any information regarding
the occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon has been requested.
Limited benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in Stones Creek. Samples
were collected pursuant to current DWQ methodology. Table 2 provides a list of benthic
organisms collected and identified to Order and Family when possible.
Table 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected From Stones Creek.
Order Family
Odonata Coenagrionidae
Gomphidae
Corduliidae
Hemiptera Corixidae
Coleoptera Haliplidae
Diptera Chironomidae
Dixidae
Hydracarina
Amphipoda
Decapoda
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of B-4215 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the project study area. The replacement of the existing
structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Impac ts resulting from bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. Plant
communities within the project study area are presented in Table 1; however, actual
impacts will be limited to the designed right-of-way and permitted construction limits. Due
to the anticipated lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed
' bridge replacement should not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. Wildlife movement corridors should not be significantly impacted by
t 11

' the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study area are generally
acclimated to fragmented landscapes, and the bridge replacement should not create any
additional detrimental conditions within the project study area.
Aquatic Communities
The replacement of B-4215 may cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities in
and around the project study area. Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat will be
avoided by bridging Stones Creek to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Support
structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible.
In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during
construction should be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum, except
for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. Waterborne sediment
flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt curtain. Stockpiled material
should be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15.2 m) from the stream channel. Silt fences should
also be erected around any stockpiled material to minimize the chance of erosion or run-off
from affecting the stream channel. Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR- will follow
current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management Practices (BMPs] for the protection of
surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases
including the BMPs for HQWs.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No
long-term impacts are expected to result from this project. No impacts are anticipated to
anadromous fish runs or spawning habitat. Anadromous fish species have been
documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the subbasin and may occur in the
project study area. NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guide/roes for Anadromous Fish should be
utilized to ensure that the replacement of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish.
Resident aquatic species may be displaced during construction activities; however,
' anticipated impacts are expected to be minor and temporary.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA1. Additionally, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States" and are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and COE as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a
12

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 19871.
One wetland types occurs within the project study area. The wetlands adjacent to the
surface waters of Stones Creek exhibit characteristics of a palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/saturated (PF01 E) wetlands pursuant to Cowardin et
a/. (1979). This wetland classification is consistent with a coastal plain bottomland
hardwood forest. The surface waters within the channel of Stones Creek exhibits
characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
(R2UBH) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979).
' ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of these wetland areas based on current COE
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble TM Global Positioning
System (GPS) units. Table 3 contains the approximate acreage of the wetlands and linear
footage of the stream channel within the project study area. Wetland area is based upon
aerial photography base mapping provided by NCDOT.
' Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters.
Approximate Area Stream Channel
Wetland Type Acres (hectares)a Feet (meters)
PF01 E 2.28 (0.92)
R2UBH 0.33 (0.13) 820 (250)
Total 2.61 11.05) 820 (250)
a Based on results of GPS maps and project study area limits provided by NCDOT.
Anticipated impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be determined
during the design phase of the project. Actual impacts will be limited to right-of-way
widths and will be less than the amounts described in Table 3.
4.2 Permit Issues
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)]
13

has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a
General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will
require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under
General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be
required if temporary structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary
for this project if they are not covered under the NEPA document.
Onslow County is a coastal county and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of the
' Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA- as regulated by the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) and the NCDCM. Activities that impact certain coastal wetlands under the
jurisdiction of CAMA or Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) typically require CAMA
approval through the NCDCM (NCDCM 2001-. Portions of the project study area will likely
qualify as an AEC because Stones Creek may qualify as public trust waters. Public trust
waters are the coastal waters and submerged lands that every North Carolinian has the
right to use. These areas often overlap with estuarine waters, but also include many
"Inland" fishing waters (NCDCM 2001). Stones Creek is classified as a "Coastal Water"
by the NCMFC. The replacement of B-4215 will likely require CAMA approval.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is also responsible for authorizing bridges pursuant
to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946.
The purpose of these Acts to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent
interference with interstate and foreign commerce. Bridge construction or replacement
over navigable waters may require USCG authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 1 14-1 15.

Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-
way width and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project.
Impacts to open water areas of Stones Creek are not expected due to the use of channel-
spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized,
including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to
minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
Wetland Avoidance -Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project
study area, complete avoidance of jurisdictional impacts may not be possible.
Minimization -Minimization of jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by utilizing as much
of the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of new
impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas
14

s

ii

1

within wetlands. Spanning Stones Creek will also serve to minimize direct impacts to the
stream channel.
Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation could be required for this project if it does not meet
the criteria fora CE pursuant to NWP #23. Temporary impacts associated with the
construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species
and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project completion.
Little opportunity for on-site or directly adjacent mitigation exists within the project study
area. The existing causeway and approach to the existing bridge could possibly provide
on-site wetland restoration if the new bridge is designed to span the entire floodplain of
Stones Creek. The existing causeway could be removed and the area could be graded
down to an elevation consistent with the surrounding floodplain and replanted with native
wetland species.
4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA1 of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Federally protected species listed for Onslow
County ~FWS list dated 12 April 2001) are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for Onslow County, NC.
Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion
American alligator A//igator mississippiensis T(S/A)' NA
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No effect
Piping plover Charadrius me/odus T No effect
Green sea turtle Che/onia mydas T No effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermoche/ys coriacea E No effect
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar E No effect
Bald eagle Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us TZ Unresolved
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoldes borealis E No effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pum/lus T No effect
Golden sedge Carex /utea PE No effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperu/aefo/ia E No effect
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooley/ E No effect
' T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
2 Proposed for delisting
15

1
t

1
1
American alligator -American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in
appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians
native to North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a wide variety of freshwater
to estuarine habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes,
large streams, canals, ponds and lakes (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This habitat exists
within the project study area, and the potential for alligators within the project study area
does exist. No individuals or direct evidence of occurrence was observed during the field
investigation conducted by ESI biologists.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Applicable
NHP records do document occurrences of the American alligator in Stones Creek as
recently as 1992. Construction activities may temporarily displace any American
alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to the American alligator is
anticipated as a result of this project. No biological conclusion is required for the
American alligator since it is listed as T(S/A).
Sea turtles -Three marine turtles are listed for Onslow County: leatherback sea turtle,
green sea turtle, and loggerhead sea turtle.
The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle on the coast of the North Carolina
and is most numerous from late April to October. This species averages 31 to 47 inches
(0.8 to 1.2 m1 in length and weighs from 170 to 500 pounds (Ibs) (77 to 227 kg) (Martof
et a/. 19801• The loggerhead sea turtle is temperate or subtropical in nature, and is
primarily oceanic, but it may also stray into freshwater bays, sounds, and large rivers.
Nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtles consists of ocean beaches.
Both the green sea turtle and leatherback sea turtle typically nest on sandy beaches in
tropical areas. The green sea turtle is most commonly found in the Caribbean where they
breed, although individuals, usually immatures, are occasionally found along the North
Carolina coast. Although primarily tropical in nature, the range of the leatherback sea
turtle may extend to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Martof et a/. 1980). The leatherback
sea turtle sometimes moves into shallow bays, estuaries, and even river mouths. The
green sea turtle reaches lengths of 30 to 60 inches (0.8 to 1.5 m) and weighs of 220 to
650 lbs. (100 to 295 kg), and has a smooth, heart-shaped shell (Martof et a/. 1980). The
leatherback sea turtle is distinguished by its larger size (46- to 70-inch [1.2 to 1.8 m]
carapace, 650 to 1,500 lbs. [295 to 680 kg]) and a ridged shell of soft, leathery skin.
Green sea turtles are omnivorous, primarily eating jellyfish and seaweeds. The leatherback
sea turtle also feeds extensively on jellyfish, although its diet often includes other sea
animals and seaweed,
16

1

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
These species are not expected to occur in the project study area due to lack of
nesting habitat and minimal feeding opportunities. NHP does not document any
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of
December 20, 2001. This project will not have an effect on sea turtles due to the
lack of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for these species.
Piping plover -Piping plovers are small shorebirds that occur along beaches above the high
tide line, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes,
blowout areas behind primary dunes, and washover areas cut into or between dunes (FWS
1996a-. Nests are typically found on open, wide sandy stretches of beach similar to those
associated with inlets and capes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat in the project study area for this species. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project
study area as of December 20, 2001. The proposed project will not impact the
piping plover or any suitable habitat.
Eastern cougar -The eastern cougar is a possibly extinct eastern subspecies of the
widespread mountain lion species. This species was possibly extirpated from North
Carolina by the late 1800's although recent sporadic sightings have been reported from
remote areas of the Mountains and Coastal Plain (Lee 1987). Mountain lions are large,
long-tailed cats; adult males may measure 7.0 to 9.0 feet (2.1 to 2.7 m) total length with
females averaging 30 to 40 percent smaller (Handley 1991). Adult mountain lion tracks
measure approximately 3.5 inches (0.09 m) (Lee 1987).
Recent specimens of mountain lion taken in North Carolina and elsewhere in mid-Atlantic
states have proved to be individuals of other subspecies that have escaped or been
released from captivity ILee 1987, Handley 1991). The eastern cougar would require large
tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat that support large populations of white-tailed deer
(Webster et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No tangible evidence has been produced documenting the existence of this
subspecies in Onslow County. Due to the lack of wilderness area within the project
study area, no suitable habitat for this subspecies is believed to be present. No cat
tracks of sufficient size for eastern cougar were identified during field
investigations. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0
17
1

1

1

mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. The proposed
project will not affect this species.
Bald eagle -The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6.0 feet (1.8 m-.
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown
with whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on
fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends
from December through May (Potter et al. 1980).
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and
forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel 1992).
Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (229 to
457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining acceptable
conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). FWS recommends avoiding any disturbance activities,
including construction and tree-cutting, within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone
extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1 mile (1.6 km) from a nest
tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting
period. FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles
forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet (457 m) of
roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
No bald eagle nests were observed within the project study area. Stones Creek
may provide potential foraging habitat; however, development and human
disturbances reduce the likelihood for bald eagles to utilize the project study area.
NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area as of December 20, 2001. A follow up survey should be
conducted 1 to 2 years prior to project construction.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) -This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [0.2 m] long)
has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black and white barred back. Males
often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or
difficult to see (Potter et a/. 19801. Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature
southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, longleaf (Pinus pa/ustris), slash (P. a//iotii~, and
pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines,
generally older than 60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity
trees typically occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills
holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, which results in a shiny, resinous buildup
around the entrance. This allows for easy detection of active nest trees due to the high
visibility of the resin deposit at the cavity entrance. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas that
are fire maintained serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species. Development
18
1

~~
0
ii

1
C

of a thick understory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential
nest sites for RCW's include pine and pine/hardwood stands greater than 60 years of age.
Hardwood/pine stands (< 50% pine) greater than 60 years of age may also be considered
potential nesting habitat if adjacent to potential foraging habitat (Henry 1989). Foraging
habitat is typically comprised of open pine/mixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age
(Henry 19891. Pines must comprise at least 60 percent of the canopy in order to provide
suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger pine stands may be utilized if the trees
have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than or equal to 9 inches (0.2 m).
Foraging stands must be connected to other foraging areas or nesting areas in order to be
deemed a viable foraging site. Open spaces or unsuitable habitat wider than approximately
330 feet (100 m) are considered a barrier to RCW foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No RCW nesting or foraging habitat was observed within the project study area.
The pines located in the pine/hardwood forest community do not appear to be old
enough for nesting and foraging would likely be inhibited due to thick groundcover
and lack of a connection to other foraging or nesting areas.
NHP records document the known occurrence of RCW's within 1.5 miles 12.4 km)
' from the project study area. Several colonies were identified by NHP along NC 172
south of the project study area; and they were last observed in 1980. NHP does
not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
' project study area as of December 20, 2001. Project construction should not
impact the RCW or any suitable habitat.

i~

seabeach amaranth -This species is an annual herb that grows on barrier island beaches.
It is a succulent annual that is sprawling or trailing and may reach 2 feet (0.6 m) or more in
length. Inconspicuous flowers and fruits are produced in the leaf axils, typically beginning
in July and continuing until frost. Primary habitat for seabeach amaranth consists of bare
sand, especially on overwash flats at accreting ends of islands, and lower foredunes and
upper strands of non-eroding beaches. The only remaining large populations are in coastal
North Carolina (FWS 1996b1.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth (barrier beaches) occurs within the
project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within
1.0 mite (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts
to seabeach amaranth should result from this project,
19
1

Golden sedge -Golden sedge is a member of the sedge family and is endemic to North
Carolina. The fertile culm (stem) can reach over 3 feet (1 ml in height. This perennial
sedge has yellowish green leaves that are grasslike with those of the culm mostly basal
and up to 10 inches (0.3 m) long. The leaves of the vegetative shoots reach a length of
25 inches (0.6 m). Fertile culms produce two to four flowering spikes in early and mid
April. Fruits mature by mid-May, with most or all fruit fallen by late June. Golden sedge
occurs on sites where subterranean coquina limestone influences an otherwise acidic
sandy-peaty soil, typically Grifton fine sandy loam. Soils are typically wet to saturated
during spring maturation. Golden sedge typically occupies the partially wooded ecotone
between longleaf pine savanna and nonriverine swamp forest. This sedge appears to be
dependent on occasional-to-frequent fire associated with the adjacent savanna to suppress
the shrub understory. Golden sedge is known from only Pender and Onslow counties in
North Carolina and all populations are in one 4-mile (6.4 km) wide area (LeBlond 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No suitable habitat for golden sedge was observed within the project study area.
NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to golden sedge
should result from this project.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that
flowers from late May to June with seeds forming by August and capsules dehiscing in
October. This species can grow up to 2 feet (0.6 m) tall has yellow flowers that typically
bloom in late May through June. Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs along the
ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer (i. e., pocosins). This species is
endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills region of North Carolina. This species is fire
maintained, and suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of
habitat in North Carolina (FWS 1994a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
' NHP records show that rough-leaved loosestrife has been documented
approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 km) west of the project study area in an area known
as Great Sandy Run. NHP records indicate that this population was last observed in
1992. No suitable habitat that would support rough-leaved loosestrife occurs in the
project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within
' 1.0 mile 11.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts
to rough-leaved loosestrife should result from this project.

20
1

r~

0

r

i
Cooley°s meadowrue - Cooley's meadowrue is a rare perennial herb endemic to the
Southeastern Coastal Plain. The species grows in circumneutral soil in moist wet savannas
and savanna-like areas kept open by fire or other disturbance. In North Carolina, Cooley's
meadowrue has been documented as growing in the following soil series: Foreston,
Grifton, Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington. All of these series have sandy loam
textures. Tulip poplar and cypress (Taxodium sp.) growing together, bordering asavanna-
like area, has been the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites (FWS 1994b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Cooley's meadowrue is not located within the project study
area. Although Muckalee loam occurs within the project study area, the vegetative
community types are not consistent with those associated with the known
populations of Cooley's meadowrue. NHP does not document any occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20,
2001.
Federal Species of Concern
The 12 April 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999,
LeGrand et a/. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for FSC listed for
Brunswick County (Table 5).
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Onslow County, NC.
Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status ' Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC N
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR(PSC) Y
Black rail Latera//us jamaicensis SR N
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC(PT) Y
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris SR N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC(PT) N
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus W Y
Carolina spleenwort Asp/enium heteroresiliens E N
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W N
Hirstis panicgrass 2 Panicum hirstii E N
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipu/a C-SC N
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C N
Boykin's lobelia Lobe/ia boykinii C N
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T N
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata W N
Table 5. Continues.
21

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ii

1
1
1
1
1
Table 5. Continued.
Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status ' Habitat
Carolina grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia caro/iniana E N
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei E N
Carolina goldenrod So/idago pu/chra E N
Spring-flowered goldenrod So/idago versa T Y
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia g/abra C N
E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W -Watch List, P -Proposed,
SR -Significantly Rare
z Candidate for consideration for official federal listing (C1).
Three FSC have been documented by the NHP as occurring within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of
the project study area. These three species include: Venus flytrap. Carolina goldenrod, and
awned meadowbeauty. All of the known occurrences are on Camp Lejeune property. The
closest occurrence of Venus flytrap is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) southeast of the
project study area and was last observed in 1990. The closest known occurrence of
Carolina goldenrod is approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 km) from the project study area and
was last observed in 1992. The closest known occurrence of awned meadowbeauty is
approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 km) away and was last observed in 1991. No FSC were
observed within the project study area during the field investigation
22

' 5.0 REFERENCES
' Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
' Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
' Department of the Arm (DOA). 1987. Cor s of En ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Y p 9
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
' Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR-. 2001. Active NPDES Permits.
Web Address: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.htm on September 1,
2001.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
' Standards Assigned to the Waters of the White Oak River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 194 pp.
DWQ. 2000. Basin-wide Assessment Report- White Oak River Basin. NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 96 pp.
DWQ. 2001. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. Web address:
h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies.html
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle
in the Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 10 pp.
FWS. 1994a. Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
FWS. 1994b. Recovery Plan for Cooley's Meadowrue. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta GA. 29 pp.
23

FWS. 1996a. Piping Plover ICharadrius me/odus) Atlantic Coast Population Revised
Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA. 258 pp.
' FWS. 1996b. Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 59 pp.
FWS. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
' Concern, By County, in North Carolina. Onslow County, NC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville NC. List Date 12 April 2001.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
' Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.) Virginia's
Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward
' Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
' Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.
LeBlond, R. 1996. Status survey for Carex /utea. Unpublished report submitted to the
Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC.
' Lee D.S. 1987. Felis concolor True Panther. Endan ered Thr
g eatened, and Rare Fauna of
North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the
North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
' LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.

u
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
24
1

' National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS1. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. 62 pp.
' North Carolina Division of Coastal Mangement (NCDCM-. 2001. CAMA Handbook for
Development in Coastal North Carolina. NC Department of Environment and Natural
' Resources. Web Address: dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Handbook/handbook.htm 43 pp.
' North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC). 2001. North Carolina Fisheries
Rules for Coastal Waters. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
' Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The Universit of
Y
' North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
' Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1 182 pp.
' Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
' Ros en D. 1996. A lied River Mor holo Wildland H drol In
9 pp p gy y ogy, c., Pagosa Spnngs,
' CO. 365 pp.

1

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-. 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 139 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
USGS. Photorevised 1988. Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 7.5-minute series topographic
map.
25

' Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
26

,. ~ r ,1 \ \ VC 1 ' tom. ~ \ x.11 f \-.~=c ~__-~~ \ J'/((l ~ ,,y1`r ~x ~, 4~ ~l.~C~Lrig
lr \ `'~ Y~ )I. ..-. ;` r i ,~s..~. ,~.-`-~JfJ r;~ 1' ( ~L-~\__ ~ I ~ f. ~, ~ Ji ~~,~?'~~~;~i \
~ ~ l ! ~r~ < ,+ : 1~ ~ ~,~-
j . f rU r ~`~:
_~r
y _ I
{ ~ v !r
," ~~.f--~ ~1 ' .~~ --~ ~ E... t _ ' ~ ' f ~1~~ f %i ~t~ _ ~ y t'y ~ '.~~'~~ J% ~ \\ L~ r ~~_ /''r t,
1 . ( +,i ~ ~.J~ l /~lefi ~i-~.: \t '~ ~- j ~..f: ~ J^ -,~J f +~i \ V ~~2
.. ~ ~_ ~ C,--.1 h,'V N 1 i+t ! 1 `t i S r ~ ~ ~ cF-~ ~~ r~!% r- ~4-,. 1 1 ~~''
rt 'Fitt ~\ I S ` ~ F? ~r, i ~' I [~ ; f J"-, s. i ~ ~ ~-~"'~~1=
~ t ,_ <- ..
,tom ~'•+ - ;~ ~'_ } _._.,.
~ ` \~ ~r may''`" - i = /3 ~
!,4 ,t a~,~ J /J~`'~ c,~~,iyj~~/r /rY '` 1_ ~ cCy -_ , ~\~~'~~ ~x\ ~~+T= R~` />) 1. ~~ -''~~~~-
,j_~l~ ~,~~-~~ ~-v VIII%% ,~ ~--- ~`~ /ir( ~3i /trv, x~ `- /4 i ' +~ ~} ,~I~; T
-"~'- M~ `^ <'~l r+I t'"' '~ r~ !l s '~; ~'~ ~ i \' l i ~ \ ~~"=1 +l ~ ~~~j ~' ~ S.V' I `~ f ~ =~
- `-' J I+ ~ ,~ -~ \ ~ 4 ) i+ ~: f; Gj. 'ii /~_.~+/-~jj"~.%i t ` ~ yam` ~\,~ ~ \ I_I !'c1~
` _w •c ;r ~~pn `"" ~ l Z ~j t ~L~. ~ _ \, I ft;~ r ~.-.. j~(~ \ ~ ~/ -`'L~J1 "'~,''~`
jJ ~i r1`` 1. '.\\\;'r~ i~~ r~.-;1 .~~1';~\~'~~ \~1~y ~ `"%' \ (:ti
.rot ,-1; ~1 C..~ ,sl-,,,i `' \- \L.~ ~` `h~~t.
.-cam •1~ 1 if 1 „`i. ~.~^.r~ •~` r ~~ _v 1~ ``` ,\ Z ~ '.~ ),}J.~t ~ ~ •, r~
~, ~~ ~~) if ( ~~~ i+~ ;l, 'q ~~~' i ~ ` `•i i i , -' =-l,.J~ r ~ ~(r 4 ~ r?-t~4\-; { / --/ - ,~
i ~ i+ ~~ { 1'+~ ~~ ry~{~(~ .f ~;~ ~A ~ III S ~~ r^ ~a /~/J(St-~ -~ `. ~ _ ,l
+\ L, r ~~ tl~~/~jf~~~,~r •\\~~ - r; ~" ) __ -..~ .ya t •!~ ~^~ ~ v t~/ ~1'~ 1 ~1{.`
(1 ~~~ j ~~~_~if~f~~1~4~/~ ~\ ~v-. "iS~• / i (~ \ ~.c+Z ;';C-,. S~n:1 `•;~ ~-- ~~.. ~,r\ I-~
:,~ - vim:/ ~-~`_-_ :v r fI~J ~~~` i l ~ ~ ~ i ~~' { s J~~_ ~,~ ~j i'~ ~(~'~`~`~.'S`~ ~ 1 J\, .~~ . r J1~
rs. L ' ~ t fir' ( ~ if, ~t 1 ~. ~ ~! Z~~~-. ~c --~~~.~. r~
~ v",--`,,,., \~ ,;''~ ?/ ~; ill%"' I 1 e ('< , \ ~ ~, ~~ \\,\ %, ~ i ~ ~ d ~ ` J~
r, r%` ~~` tJ/~a~ 1~r ~yr~ 1~~=111~1~ 5 ~ ~\'1~ f ~j~J'tr'/;~~_ >'~:.~~~~1_. ''~'~. ~s L.\\~\
_\~.~(I -~~ may. `~j"=1 n` Y~ tty{ ~ ,, ~ ,rti~t, i_ ~i ~ ,ads-= "',~ `-~`---~~ -#~ \ 0
-~
r y ~I~c,~, 1~ t-----~ ~/rt~\ j-~ (t~~r~ (t•-'.~y j~~t (~F~ r ~ r jr~~J k ,` ~\~'~,~` ~~~~~- 1 ~ ~...~` ~ ~--~:
` ' ~ ~y1 ~J /51~ t~C[_ ~~~--i ` ~~,,~.s 1 ~ tR~t.-. `- iY~. ~\ i r \i~ ~ (( F ! , ; •7•s ', I `a'-„~""~`~-~r= ~ j ~~ ~ <. ~~/ i ~i~:~ ~ l/'
;;' .~ •i ' ` l3 s / ,= `' t fl~JLt @~~~`~•~ ri/f L )~~ ' ~ F t I , a .`;c' w~ ~ '~~) ^ r x ~_1~~ `' ~-~ i ( ; /
~, ~ Syr ~~~+/!~ -v _ / i : ; ~ 'G p
~1 ~Uf /~v ~ZS _ :. .~/~~~~.~~ ~ "~~%- ~l '` l ~ ~_~ ,.`~U 1~~. ~`_ •s ~f5 ~/~ ~4t\.N ~1-
t ( ~ '~ ~
it i/~ ~f , , , Z- , ~ ~ : _ ~(~ / .' w `~~ ~•, ,,.-~~~~o ~ ~ i r t ~~./ ~~ ~~'
'~ ~~~ „o ~~.,~,_1- /,~7%r r ,(/r ;) ~ f ; ~ e~ ~ '`t,~\ ~,..\ ~_.~.,\ l'~~-- r i , ,`'~ it
/ ~ .~~~ 1 ~' ` i
-----E~ t-~~ ~~ ,'fi 1f i - I N ,~ ~ '~ .. %~' if 1 t,.~~ ~
~~'~,`~. ~--1 ~-__ ~. 1. ~~h ~~ ~ ~ tr''"\~_~ f~1 ~;\ ~'1 1. J1, ~ /,l` /1 ,- 1 ( a {
~~ ~ ,:
Lr\~ '~ ~- ~;~
~. /',
~~ ~ ~ ~~
~- - -

~`~:-rr` ,.--
..: ~r~ U
~~t
x

`~ t r ;
{;,, -
r
r ~% tl,.y
/ . / f ~ Y A~ (~ I --~

WR
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name ~M~Q ~. ~ ~~,~ Nearest road rY ~. v~~~
County ~n~~~/ Name of Evaluator ~~ Date 1 ~°~
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
_ other
Soil Series ~t~,.c,4~~I°~ ~~~
' _ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat_
~ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
' wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation ~
agriculture, urban/suburban / O
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation

Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
Xntermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)

xBottomland hardwood forest
Pine savanna
_
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
=
Pocosin =
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage .~ * 4 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization _~ * 4 = 1,~•
Pollutant removal _~.. * 5
Wildlife habitat ~ * 2
Aquatic life value _~ * 4 =
' Recreation/Education .~ * 1 =
Add i point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within i/2 milc upstream

To al score

vV
~~
' Wetland Rating Worksheet
S
~ 1 ~`- `10~, j~ Nearest road_ ~~- ~(~ ~
Project name ,+•~
County Ow Name of Evaluator ~5.1_ Date.~~~O1
1 Wetland location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
_ on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation~~
~on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban ~~
i _ on intermittent stream impervious surface ~~
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series ~uc{~~~ ~~~ (1) ~GQ~ l~~Pu,vv~,
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat_ (2) ~P A+1\N.S ~iAol~ n-b.+~~~
' )Cpredominantly mineral- non-sandy ` A' 1 I
_ predominantly sandy (3) ~/~1JOd_~n~.ti0. Gr'20~~
f~
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
(wetland width >/= 50 feet
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
)Cintermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)

xBottomland hardwood forest -
Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
' =Swamp forest
Wet flat _ Bog/fen
_ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
' Water storage * 4 = 1
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4 =
Pollutant removal * 5
o~©
Wildlife habitat ~ * =
2 _~
Aquatic life value ~ * 4 = ~_
Recreation/Education ~_ * i = _~
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

To 1 score

:.. ... - -
- ..~_.,'. _.~ _ -.__..:. .,....:..., ,, .. ,. ~ _: , .....~_.,_ . _ ~` '-- - -, ,~ -:~ _.:.,..,~~r ,>. _...t ~..r. .,:-c-aac`~.nt_a...: ~~C.-._. '~-°:`:~'~::".~:,~'~.r~.~'i~-~»~~ .-~..ra~'~"a~~ ~-:~;.e

F -.
h
~~
~~~ h ~ ~
ti
t
~~ ~~
1 y 1C ~
v .~
1 ~` ~~~
~ ~ ~~
~~~ ~ .
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ -~
1

~~

``h
~_
--~~-.
~+
~~
~~
~~
~~
-~~
.~
~~ ---~
~~
~~
-~

»~,;~„~ ~
::~. ~,.
.....
.. -_.r- _.___-__ -
l
~ Jh
~ d
~ v ~° ; ~
~~ ~ ~, _ ~
' ~ H o 4~~ t ti" t„ ~
~L ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
-~ ~ ; °~
LJ 1 ~ C~
.,
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~~
~ ~
V R`~ ~ \
` A r
~ \_ ~ y
,~
~ ~
~~~~~_~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~r
' ~ ~~ a J
-~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~t
J
~ ~ ~~
-=~ ~ ~
:4__ .-- - -- ----

1
1

i`

0

C1

ii

:' ..

~L Y
_.. ~~

_._ _. `
_-. _ .. _ _
_ _. _. S_. \ `
_ ~____: _.. ___ _._.__-__-_.
~ti
_ _ ` _ _
_'

_._.. _ __. ~L. _ -.. _ .-. -_.

L .-
~,
f ~. ((
C'^
t

___ ____. 1, _..._ _
~
~
,
1 _
S ~ _ ` _ _.~
{ V ~ '
~ ~ mss- _ ---.-
v
- _

,. ~ os ~ _ _ - __ - --- -
-t
-
1

_
G
- --
-_ _~
~
--- :-~ . ..
L ~
-- - _ _

[~ <t
i^'^ Yti.
` `_1
i ,..
+,`
~~.
~;
~,
't
--z
..1
\J
`vJ/
Cj l
~ ,_
L
r
~_
`~ ..
-"
~~
I ~.
~~
v~, t- ,;.
~~
.r : v ::;,
r.
+"
r,-~
r'i
__
-v°-" 1~ lJ ~,
~- _ ~`~ <
J ( ~ 4 i
l~ ___ .. ___ _ .._
f
J
- . .~
._- -._.

~~
~. - - -
~.
,_ __ ~
- --
~ - --T j
~ ~~_ ~_ -~ - -1
~ ~ - - --
- _~ --
----- - -
-- - -
-~ 1 - - - --- --
~ --
t~~ --
;--
U
~~ _ ~ -
t
r'
t
~ 1
i
~i l ~j ~
~

f ~ '
I
f
~ I '
~ i
1 i
1 ~
~

~ I
I ~
~ !
f!
1
I
' ~

`
s
~ i

~ ~
J ~ ~
y
c~ ~
~,
z. I
~ ~

'r

gJl ~
~~
L

~ ~ _
~
~ ~

~

y

i ~
i 1
j ~ t Q
a~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~
`-. ~
~ .>I ~
~
,

I

`

J

-

(

~

I

~

~

'
~i
i
`~
~
!
!

I

i ~

l

I

l

~

i

~
'
I
l
'
~
~
~

I

l
i

t
~

`

~

l

~

~

I

I

i

'
l

l

I

1

~

D
D
L

1

D

ii

u
1
1
~~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuall
Project/Site: ~,~~ ~O ~~~; ~~ -~ ~ ~~ Date: ~ ~ /©~
Applicant/Owner: ~LA©T' County: Q/-S (Q In/
Investigator: ESL State: ~L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ Community ID: a.~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? Yes Transect ID: I,v -
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye N Plot ID: lnl~'~-
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2.
3.
~ ~Q.f` ~4.b ~larw
~
~
~ , 0.
11.
/
4.~ Apt ttuS ~St111~~~ AI QJ1D~ ~ o
r ~y
/~ / TC~ 12.
5. 13.

7. ~~A~ ~~
iJ~IY
V
W ~ ~ 1
Wl~' 15.
``
[
i
8. ~l~\'~t~.tYw°. ~n~~A~ IIkM ~ `
~W 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,
l
di
FAC
)
FAC ( FACW or ~~j _. /Q~ j
t
~ !
exc
u
ng
- o
D
Remarks:
VVQ
~~dv~~~
`~ 1
IW~~Q~
~IQG~
.
+t CL
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 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:

1
V vl
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ~ n. ~ + Y€3: y~~~ °- .-jtpf~ CrQSL.I~ Date: ~ C iZ~'~i
Applicant/Owner: Nc p~~ County: ~ ~ ~jv~1
Investigator: ~5-a State: ~L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~r~~o Community ID: ~~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesVyn' Transect ID: W A -~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Caro;n~ ~~~ ~~
T
~ --~
s. 1ox~~~.,~~l~ti ~~c~~s A~-
2. 10.

5. ~c~.~yq ~ _ -
r-~p~ ~ 13.
6. 14.
8. 16.
Percent of Do 9nant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (
l
di
FAC
) ~ /~ 1~~~/
/ l

exc
u
n
- b
Remarks:
,E1s~. c~~ b~~~~~
~ar-~v~tc~d
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated

Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

~ -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 1 Z Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 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:
V~YIJ~~~S
9 ~© i (~ 4~'~~
.

~~
DATA FORM
' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
' Project/Site- ,~ - E-(~ ~ ~ Date- d (a 7~(J~
ApplicantlOwner ~'C ~U j Counry_ ~r;stpt.,J

' tnvestigator_ f5~ State: ,N(-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?

Is th
i
i
i Yes No
Community iD_ ~ ,~S
e s
te s
gn
ficantly disturbed {Atypical Situation)?
Is th Yes o:
~ Transect 1D_ ~ ~~

' e area a potential Problem Area? Yes
i Plot tD:
lif needed, explain on reverse `~"~

r

CI

VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks}_
~;_ _Sbeam. take or Tide Gauge
_Aenal Photographs
-Other
_No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: ,- (in }
Depth to Ftee Water in Pit: i _6n }
Depth to Saturated Soil_ ~ ~ ~ -(;n }
Wetland Hydrology (ndicators-
Primary Indicators=
_ rnundat e d
-Saturated in Upper 1Z Inches
-Water Marks
Drirt Lines
Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns m Wetlands
Secondary Indicators 12 or more requiredl'
_Oxid~led RvoF Channels in Upper ~2 Inches
Water-Stained leaves
locar Soil Survey Data
_Fl1C Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ) ,)j r
(J

C

t~~'1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
[1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: (J " `Ia~~S~ Date: ~'~-7•-4t~
Applicantl0wner /l.`t ~Q r County: _ QYiStf~ f.J
Investigator: ~'~$•,.L Siate: !v ~-
Do Norlnat Circumstances exist on the site? 1(~ N~o Community iD: ~~-
Is the site signiticantty disturbed [Atypical Situation)? Yes `'-`-`,` Transect ID: ~t4 f j
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot [D:
(lf needed, exptarn on reverse
VEGETA7tON
Dominant Plarrt Sp//ecies Strahrm Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Fndicator

3- (mil ({tdtt~- ~ Q.t4t i t~ ~f A r ,'' ~ f ~" 7 7.

~
6• yi(fR~iS dCbs'lc4~til~S
~L' ! ~
~ 14-
(
`
7. ~ (' i S aP~ ~ A ild~ ~i ~ r
Y ~ Gi3 •' t s-
$' 16_
Percent oI Dominant Species that are OBE, F ACW or
FAC {excluding FAC-j j`j(~ ~~~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data {Descnbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, lake or Trde Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
~-Other
I/ No Recorded D
t
A
il _~/Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
a
a
va
able -
Dnh lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators IZ or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: ~
{in. ) -O"dried Root Channels in Upper 72 Inches
_Water-Stained leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ (n I -local Soil Survey Data

Depth tv Saturated Soil: _
~
{irt) _FAC Neutral Test
-Other [Explain in Aemarksi
Remarks: ~4_ 1~~

ii
n
u

0

ii

0

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
~~ W-e~
WG
W .Q
Project/Site: ,~ ~~ n 1 VO. y a~~ " ~S ~K Date: ~ ;Z~1C~
Applicant/Owner: 1~L.~U~' County: Q~~OW
Investigator: ~~.~ State: N ~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? LYE' o Community ID: c~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Y Transect ID: ~U1$ -•.-.~
Pf
ID
es
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ot
:
(If needed, explain on reverse
vr`r_~-reTlnnl
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
FR Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,. ~wa,u,L~ ~~;~~~. T c. 9.
2. , 0.
4. ~ ~-P` ~ ~I~CVV~ ~ ~ 12.
5. 13.

7. `~J~~ Q~i~~ ~ ~FJI-~ 15.
8. 1`- 0. ~ ~ ~ nL1` 1s.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
A (p/~ ~ !®~~`~/
! l /~'
FAC (excluding F
C-)
Remarks:
~~
~
~
`
1~ ~ ~
l]
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
- Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

~ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
fin.)
Depth of Surface Water: Water-Stained Leaves

~ Local Soil Survey Data
lin-}
Depth to Free Water in Pit: -
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks-
-
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
W C3
W~
Project/Site: Bu;~r~ 1v~. "1~I,,S '- j~1.Q;v ~(`~S-~, Date: ~ f c~ T-OI
Applicant/Owner: I V L pOT' County: 115 i~r,~/
Investigator: ~jZ State: ~L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: I~igrow~dl~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: ~f~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

r"
T
4.~C~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ 12.
5.
`
6. !'t'TY~Y r+ a~n Q.Sp~40i~ ~j,
1 I
~ 13.
14.
7 • TN`I~iCi~~Q JUIO~. C1"1A~4 ~ ~1N~ ~ ~
~ ~ Q
J_1J ~-"`! ` 15.
8. ~ 1~ t4 ~0.- ~ ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that
FAC (
l
di
FAC
) are OBL, FACW or ~^ ~
~ ~~ ~
`~--~
exc
u
ng
- ~~
j
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
((''~~ -Oxidized Rovt Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: V (in-) Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water in Pit: `'~
71 d (in-) -Local Soil Survey Data

~ _FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~~ (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rema
k
s:
(
~
~ l ``
`
"
"
v + f~ ~ nc~~
~ f`S 6~e r~
~ ,

1 `

-N-
a IOend
a9 ~
.
`~
a8
~
hall
`A,
\ ha I la
~
~
` vY `
a7 `
°4
~

a I b
~ a3
~
' ~~\ ° a5 °2 • ~ la
~
~
v sh st`

`
a9a ~
' ~
~
a2 ~
~
~ ~
~
~
a8 a3 ~
~
' \~ a8a ~`
~ b6
°4 \
~ b7 ~

' \~ 5 8 b9

~ a7/ 13
5 ~~
W ~
3
~ a
a7a/we Ist ~
2 ` ~~
~
W &2
\
b (start ~ °6
~
' ~~ ha e3 ~

d3
`
e4 a 7 ~~

' ~
~ d4 e5 U
5 ~
~
~\ h e6 8 ~1
~ e7 °g ~

~ u
8
' ` c5 h
e9 ~
\
~~ c4 ha4a a 10 a 10 ~
` c3
~ h W
e I I
°~I
' c2
Isi`Qrt ha3a a 12 ~
~ °3 ~ a 12

~~ h X13 ~ al5
' `
~ `A/
Vv 2 i

~~ ~~5 ~
i
i

° I a 14
~ a t i
` ~ el6 ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
`~ ~` e 17 ~
` ~ i
~~ ~ e 18 ~
~ ` ~
i
~~ i ~ ~
~ ~ i
g~ '
,,
--,-
I°
Ib i
t~lc ~
i
Id ~ i
~ i
~ i
300 Feet ~ ~
~ ~
100 Meters ~ ~
~ i
~ i